MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413391294 · doi:10.1115/omae2025-157083

Cement Bond Quality Prediction Based on Wide and Deep Neural Networks

2025· article· en· W4413391294 on OpenAlexaff
Wang Zheng, Xianzhi Song, Ergün Kuru, Gunnar DeBruijn, Huazhou Li, Jiawei Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkCementQuality (philosophy)BondComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep neural networksMachine learningMaterials scienceComposite materialBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cementing quality is critical for the safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of oil and gas wells. However, predicting cementing quality remains highly challenging due to the numerous influencing factors and their interdependencies. Current cementing quality prediction methods are still in the developmental stage, making it difficult to build robust models that meet the stringent requirements of cementing design. This study collected cementing data from an oilfield in western China. Various data-cleaning techniques were applied to the raw data, effectively addressing issues with missing values and anomalies. Subsequently, correlation analysis was conducted to eliminate irrelevant variables, and the dataset for model construction was finalized. Based on the correlation analysis and the characteristics of cementing data, a cement bond quality prediction model was developed using a Wide & Deep Neural Network. The model simultaneously predicts the cement bond quality of both the casing-cement sheath and the cement sheath-formation interfaces. Given the significant impact of thickening time on cementing outcomes, this study incorporated the Arrhenius equation to correct thickening time under varying temperature and pressure conditions, embedding this correction into the neural network. This further enhanced the model’s accuracy. The final model achieved a prediction accuracy of 87.5% for the casing-cement sheath interface and 89.5% for the cement sheath-formation interface, enabling the prediction of wellbore quality prior to cementing operations. Finally, the interpretability of the intelligent model was analyzed using the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) method, which identified the factors with the most significant impacts on cement bond quality after model training. The proposed approach provides valuable guidance towards the optimization of cementing operations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207