Prestack seismic amplitude analysis: An integrated overview
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this tutorial, I present an overview of the techniques that are in use for prestack seismic amplitude analysis, current and historical. I show that these techniques can be classified as being based on the computation and analysis of either some type of seismic reflection coefficient series or seismic impedance. Those techniques that are based on the seismic reflection coefficient series, or seismic reflectivity for short, are called amplitude variation with offset methods, and those that are based on the seismic impedance are referred to as prestack amplitude inversion methods. Seismic reflectivity methods include: near and far trace stacking, intercept versus gradient analysis, and the fluid factor analysis. Seismic impedance methods include: independent and simultaneous P and S-impedance inversion, lambda-mu-rho analysis, Poisson impedance inversion, elastic impedance, and extended elastic impedance inversion. The objective of this tutorial is thus to make sense of all of these methods and show how they are interrelated. The techniques will be illustrated using a 2D seismic example over a gas sand reservoir from Alberta. Although I will largely focus on isotropic methods, the last part of the tutorial will extend the analysis to anisotropic reservoirs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it