Bibliographic record
Abstract
In several recent reports, we have explained the frequency dependence of the apparent seismic quality-factor (Q) observed in many studies according to the effects of geometrical attenuation, which was defined as the zero-frequency limit of the temporal attenuation coefficient. In particular, geometrical attenuation was found to be positive for most waves traveling within the lithosphere. Here, we present three theoretical models that illustrate the origin of this geometrical attenuation, and we investigate the causes of its preferential positive values. In addition, we discuss the physical basis and limitations of both the conventional and new attenuation models. For waves in media with slowly varying properties, geometrical attenuation is caused by variations in the wavefront curvature, which can be both positive (for defocusing) and negative (for focusing). In media with velocity/density contrasts, incoherent reflectivity leads to geometrical-attenuation coefficients which are proportional to the mean squared reflectivity and are always positive. For «coherent» reflectivity, the geometrical attenuation is approximately zero, and the attenuation process can be described according to the concept of «scattering Q». However, the true meaning of this parameter is in describing the mean reflectivity within the medium, and not that of the traditional resonator quality factor known in mechanics. The general conclusion from these models is that non-zero and often positive levels of geometrical attenuation are common in realistic, heterogeneous media, both observationally and theoretically. When transformed into the conventional Q-factor form, this positive geometrical attenuation leads to Q values that quickly increase with frequency. These predictions show that the positive frequency-dependent Q observed in many datasets might represent artifacts of the transformations of the attenuation coefficients into Q.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".