High resolution seismic imaging of the near-surface : comparison of energy sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shallow seismic reflection method plays an important role in helping to understand engineering, mining and environmental problems. For high resolution at shallow depth, choosing a seismic source to best meet the goals of the survey can be the most pivotal decision. This research is to study the characteristics of various portable and environmentally friendly seismic sources by comparing them to the source character of a shotgun source. The sources include two SIST (Swept Impact Seismic Technique) vibrators and a hammer. Data were collected in 1999 near St. John's, Newfoundland. They were compared with shotgun source in terms of radiated frequency spectrum and energy levels in an attempt to improve the resolving power. -- Compared to the shotgun data, the SIST vibrators provide lower frequency range but higher frequency bandwidth. Their weaker energy limits the effective penetration depth for imaging to 150 m. However, the SIST vibrator yields a higher resolution in stacked section than the shotgun. Based on its overall performance, the SIST vibrator shows a great deal of potential to be a viable, environmentally friendly seismic source with high resolution capability. This is especially suitable for environmental surveys, in which depths are usually not more than 200 m.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".