MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963608744 · doi:10.1029/2008gl035263

Neural network analysis of crosshole tomographic images: The seismic signature of gas hydrate bearing sediments in the Mackenzie Delta (NW Canada)

2008· article· en· W1963608744 on OpenAlexaffabout
Klaus Bauer, R. G. Pratt, Christian Haberland, Michael Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsGeologyAttenuationAnisotropyClathrate hydrateMineralogySeismic attributeSeismologyTomographyHydrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crosshole seismic experiments were conducted to study the in‐situ properties of gas hydrate bearing sediments (GHBS) in the Mackenzie Delta (NW Canada). Seismic tomography provided images of P velocity, anisotropy, and attenuation. Self‐organizing maps (SOM) are powerful neural network techniques to classify and interpret multi‐attribute data sets. The coincident tomographic images are translated to a set of data vectors in order to train a Kohonen layer. The total gradient of the model vectors is determined for the trained SOM and a watershed segmentation algorithm is used to visualize and map the lithological clusters with well‐defined seismic signatures. Application to the Mallik data reveals four major litho‐types: (1) GHBS, (2) sands, (3) shale/coal interlayering, and (4) silt. The signature of seismic P wave characteristics distinguished for the GHBS (high velocities, strong anisotropy and attenuation) is new and can be used for new exploration strategies to map and quantify gas hydrates.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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