MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415848231 · doi:10.1002/cjce.70150

Study on main controlling factors of tight gas reservoir productivity

2025· article· en· W4415848231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chao Cai, Zicheng Yang, Peng Luo, D. Xu, Jingyi Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight gasPermeability (electromagnetism)PorosityProductivityTight oilReservoir engineeringProduction (economics)Flow (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a differential discrete numerical model is first established, taking into account the pore structure characteristics of tight reservoirs. Subsequently, a research framework for the rock compression coefficient is developed, and its influence on multi‐stage flow in tight reservoirs is investigated. Following this, the main geological controlling factors affecting productivity are analyzed. With porosity and permeability as the focus, a productivity analysis program for tight reservoirs is constructed, revealing the evolution patterns of production capacity under low‐porosity and low‐permeability conditions. The main findings are as follows: (a) In tight reservoir settings, different rock compression coefficients have a relatively limited impact on daily gas production. (b) Initial daily gas production shows little variation across different porosity values; however, as depletion development proceeds, lower porosity leads to a more rapid decline in gas production. (c) At permeability values of 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.1 mD, the initial daily gas production rates are 1528.578, 2547.596, 3566.587, and 5095.023 m 3 , respectively. Daily gas production gradually decreases throughout the depletion process.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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 venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering→Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→