MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415983072 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202585009

The Value of Frequent Spot Seismic: 4 Years of Monitoring on the Weyburn Field

2025· article· W4415983072 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Peruch, S. Chen, Eugene Morgan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeBright spotAmplitudeOil fieldEconomic geologyHot spot (computer programming)Seismic wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In 2024, 4D imaging and spot seismic has been performed over the Weyburn field, in Saskatchewan, Canada, to monitor CO2 injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Between 2022 and 2024, three spot seismic monitoring campaigns were conducted and successfully detected CO2 plume. Each campaign consisted in the imaging of 16 spots, initially placed based on flow model predictions with the aim of tracking injection dynamics and potential mismatches between predicted and actual CO2 fronts. Whitecap Resources conducted in November 2024 a 4D seismic survey, which was successfully compared with spot seismic results, showing a promising complementarity of each technology. With sufficient repeatable data and a basic processing sequence spot seismic allows to perform time lapse detection. The first two spot seismic acquisitions occurred in 2022. Most spots within the CO2 plume extension prediction detected CO2, except one model mismatch at a spot where CO2 was detected outside of the predicted CO2 plume. On the second acquisition, the mismatched persisted and is today located into a high CO2 concentration area on the 4D amplitude changes map.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCO2 Sequestration and Geologic InteractionsFrench-language works237,207