MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415494989 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202521066

Incorporating Microseismic data into Discrete Fracture Network Models in Enhanced Geothermal Systems, Utah FORGE

2025· article· W4415494989 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Cottrell, E. MacInnes, Aleta Finnila

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismGeothermal gradientFracture (geology)WorkflowGeothermal energyBlack boxFlow (mathematics)Network model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The Utah Frontier Observatory for Research in Geothermal Energy (FORGE) is a multi-year initiative funded by the US Department of Energy for testing targeted EGS research and development. The authors have been supporting the FORGE project since 2017 to develop Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) models to characterize both the natural fractures present and the induced fractures created during hydraulic stimulation. Previous DFN models of the site included hundreds to thousands of discrete fractures and relied on stochastic generation of features. This new simplified DFN model is created to provide an alternative fracture network having fewer discrete features and potentially captures the most significant flow pathways. This DFN is being used for further modelling of the long-term thermal and mechanical evolution of flow paths between these wells. The workflow for defining fractures from microseismic points is presented along with a comparison of fracture sizes and orientations between these discovered features and the fracture sets used in previous DFN models for the site.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→