MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162344166 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202510819

Hydraulic Fracture Propagation: Combined Analysis of Low-Frequency DAS and Microseismicity

2025· article· W7162344166 on OpenAlexaff
A. Ortega Perez, M. Van der Baan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture (geology)Hydraulic fracturingHydraulic pressureDeformation (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) is an emerging technology in hydraulic fracture monitoring that enables continuous, real-time measurements along the entire length of a fibre optic cable. DAS benefits from being supported by other diagnostic tools such as microseismicity to analyze fracture propagation beyond the fibre. In this study, we analyze low-frequency DAS strain rate fronts and associated microseismicity of a treatment of 38 stages, with their corresponding pumping curves, to obtain information on the characteristics of hydraulic fracture geometry and propagation. Low-frequency DAS and microseismicity reveal different aspects of hydraulic fracture propagation. The low-frequency DAS response only records strain rate changes near the observation well, whereas the microseismicity is spatially distributed over a much larger volume. Furthermore, low-frequency DAS and microseismicity record at different sampling frequencies, which in turn makes them sensitive to phenomena occurring on different time scales. Temporal analysis of both low-frequency DAS plots and microseismic growth patterns reveals distinct propagation regimes, highlighting the intricate nature of fracture dynamics over time and across different stages.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→