MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1852146098 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1347708

An algorithm for locating microseismic events

2004· article· en· W1852146098 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian L. F. Daku, J.E. Salt, Sha Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismEnergy (signal processing)Event (particle physics)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Real-time computingAlgorithmSet (abstract data type)Duration (music)SeismologyData miningGeologyAcousticsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring seismic activity in mines, produced by high stress faults in the vicinity of the mining operations, is an important issue for mine safety. A seismic event produces a short-time duration acoustic pressure wave that travels through the rock. This low-energy seismic activity in mines is typically referred to as microseismic events. The location of a microseismic event can be estimated using the pressure wave signals recorded at a set of sensors distributed throughout the mine. The classical process for locating a radiating source involves two steps: an estimation of the time difference of arrival between all sensor pairs followed by the localization, requiring the solution of a set of non-linear equations. This traditional localization process has limited success when applied to microseismic events, since they have a short-time duration, and thus generating accurate arrival time estimates is a challenging task in a noisy environment. An alternate approach to traditional localization, that avoids time-delay estimation, is to search over a grid of hypothesized source locations to find the one that best explains the observed measurements. Here, this approach is used with a performance function that is the greatest energy calculated from the sum of the sensor signals, each of which is time-shifted by an amount consistent with the hypothesized location of the event. The result is a very robust algorithm that works well with short-time duration signals and given the recent advances in low-cost computational power can be implemented in real time. The paper describes the location algorithm. Results are presented for computer generated signals as well as actual signals produced by a microseismic event that occurred one kilometer below the surface in a potash mine near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207