MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970428575 · doi:10.1190/1.3447778

Effect of signal amplitude on magnetic depth estimations

2010· article· en· W1970428575 on OpenAlexaff
Madeline Lee, Bill Morris, Hernan Ugalde

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudeRemanenceMagnetizationSIGNAL (programming language)Function (biology)Magnetic susceptibilityAcousticsPhysicsNuclear magnetic resonanceComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsMagnetic fieldOpticsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magnetic signal generated over any source can be analyzed in terms of the two basic components of any wave: frequency (λ) and amplitude (A). With respect to magnetics, the frequency will be a function of the magnetic source body depth and geometry, while the amplitude is a function of magnetization intensity (magnetic susceptibility and natural remanent magnetization, NRM, if present). Many processing and interpretation methods developed over the last 50 years take advantage of the intrinsic relationship between frequency and depth to generate a variety of depth-estimation routines. Furthermore, many methods are independent of magnetic susceptibility (and therefore amplitude) contrasts since the methods incorporate some sort of mathematical expression that nulls the effect of varying susceptibilities.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207