MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spectral decomposition with <i>f</i>−<i>x</i>−<i>y</i> preconditioning

2013· article· en· W1547477044 on OpenAlexaff
David Bonar, Mauricio D. Sacchi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconvolutionNoise (video)Representation (politics)AlgorithmComputer scienceDecompositionScale (ratio)Spectral resolutionRegional geologyGeologySpectral linePhysicsArtificial intelligenceSeismologyMetamorphic petrologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Spectral decomposition, or local time‐frequency analysis, tries to enhance the amount of information one can obtain from a seismic volume by finding the frequency content of the seismic data at each time sample. However, if a small amount of noise is present within the seismic amplitude volume, it has the potential to become more prominent in the spectrally decomposed data especially if high‐resolution or sparsity promoting methods are utilized. To combat this problem post‐processing noise removal has commonly been employed, but these techniques can potentially degrade the resolution of small‐scale geological structures in their attempt to remove this noise. Rather than de‐noising the spectrally decomposed data after they are generated, we propose to incorporate the ideas of f−x−y deconvolution within the spectral decomposition process to create an algorithm that has the ability to de‐noise the time‐frequency representation of the data as they are being generated. By incorporating the spatial prediction error filters that are utilized for f−x−y deconvolution with the spectral decomposition problem, a spatially smooth time‐frequency representation that maintains its sparsity, or high‐resolution characteristics, can be obtained. This spatially smooth high‐resolution time‐frequency representation is less likely to exhibit the random noise that was present in the more conventionally obtained time‐frequency representation. Tests on a real data set demonstrate that by de‐noising while the time‐frequency representation is being constructed, small‐scale geological structures are more likely to maintain their resolution since the de‐noised time‐frequency representation is specifically built to reconstruct the 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207