MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948627725 · doi:10.5072/prism/28201

The Implications of Water in Tight Gas – A Case Study on Shell Canada's Groundbirch Position in the Montney

2015· dissertation· en· W6948627725 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight gasHydraulic fracturingPosition (finance)Natural gasDeep waterWork (physics)Water qualityHydraulic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slickwater hydraulic fracturing has become commonplace in tight gas developments as with Shell Canada's Groundbirch position in the Montney play. Water is a technical and non-technical issue for both surface and subsurface disciplines. Critical concerns pertaining to water at Groundbirch included sourcing water to stimulate wells, ensuring that the water used in hydraulic fracturing was not detrimental to the production of natural gas, and predicting the flows and potential storage volumes of water throughout the field such that water handling facilities could be appropriately designed enabling water to be optimally recycled. This thesis presents the author's work at Groundbirch as a pragmatic basis for developing a hydraulic fracturing water chemistry specification, water forecasts and balances for design considerations, and special analyses used to better quantify the mobility of water or aqueous phase trapping potential in tight gas sands, while emphasizing the importance of acquiring quality water rate and chemistry data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary)Same topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207