MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966428076 · doi:10.1071/aseg2006ab006

A comparison between anisotropic reverse time and phase-shift plus interpolation prestack migrations for tilted anisotropic media

2006· article· en· W1966428076 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Bancroft, Du Xiang, Don C. Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsXanadu Quantum Technologies (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationInterpolation (computer graphics)PrestackAnisotropyDispersion (optics)Seismic migrationPhase (matter)Wave equationMathematical analysisComputational physicsPhysicsAlgorithmMaterials scienceMathematicsAcousticsOpticsGeologyClassical mechanicsGeophysicsSeismologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two 2D anisotropie prestack depth migration algorithms that use wavefield extrapolation are evaluated for tilted transversely isotropie media (TTI).The first method is anisotropie phase-shift-plus-interpolation (A-PSPI) that is based on an analytical solution of frequency-dispersion enabling the use of an arbitrary distribution of velocities and anisotropie parameters. The second method is anisotropie reverse-time (A-RT) that uses the full wave equation.We evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of there algorithms. Examples are presented that use numerical and physically modelled data along with a structurally complex real data example. Both A-PSPI and A-RT have excellent performance with A-RT maintaining the advantage of using the full wave equation.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207