Characterizing the degree of amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset nonlinearity in seismic physical modelling reflection data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The nonlinearity of the seismic amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset response is investigated with physical modelling data. Nonlinearity in amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset becomes important in the presence of large relative changes in acoustic and elastic medium properties. A procedure for pre‐processing physical modelling reflection data is enacted on the reflection from a water‐plexiglas boundary. The resulting picked and processed amplitudes are compared with the exact solutions of the plane‐wave Zoeppritz equations, as well as approximations that are first, second, and third order in , , and . In the low angle range of 0°–20°, the third‐order plane‐wave approximation is sufficient to capture the nonlinearity of the amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset response of a liquid‐solid boundary with , , and ρ contrasts of 1485–2745 m/s, 0–1380 m/s, and 1.00–1.19 gm/cc respectively, to an accuracy value of roughly 1%. This is in contrast to the linear Aki–Richards approximation, which is in error by as much as 25% in the same angle range. Even‐order nonlinear corrective terms are observed to be primarily involved in correcting the angle dependence of , whereas the odd‐order nonlinear terms are involved in determining the absolute amplitude‐variation‐with‐offset magnitudes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it