MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974976672 · doi:10.1190/geo2013-0172.1

3D finite-element forward modeling of electromagnetic data using vector and scalar potentials and unstructured grids

2014· article· en· W1974976672 on OpenAlexaff
Seyedmasoud Ansari, Colin G. Farquharson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical analysisScalar (mathematics)Finite element methodMathematicsElectric-field integral equationBasis functionHelmholtz equationScalar potentialDiscretizationIntegral equationHelmholtz free energyMaxwell's equationsMagnetic potentialBoundary value problemGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present a finite-element solution to the 3D electromagnetic forward-modeling problem in the frequency domain. The method is based on decomposing the electric field into vector and scalar potentials in the Helmholtz equation and in the equation of conservation of charge. Edge element and nodal element basis functions were used, respectively, for the vector and scalar potentials. This decomposition was performed with the intention of satisfying the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field and the normal component of the current density across the interelement boundaries, therefore finding an efficient solution to the problem. The computational domain was subdivided into unstructured tetrahedral elements. The system of equations was discretized using the Galerkin variant of the weighted residuals method, with the approximated vector and scalar potentials as the unknowns of a sparse linear system. A generalized minimum residual solver with an incomplete LU preconditioner was used to iteratively solve the system. The solution method was validated using five examples. In the first and second examples, the fields generated by small dipoles on the surface of a homogeneous half-space were compared against their corresponding analytic solutions. The third example provided a comparison with the results from an integral equation method for a long grounded wire source on a model with a conductive block buried in a less conductive half-space. The fourth example concerned verifying the method for a large conductivity contrast where a magnetic dipole transmitter-receiver pair moves over a graphite cube immersed in brine. Solutions from the numerical approach were in good agreement with the data from physical scale modeling of this scenario. The last example verified the solution for a resistive disk model buried in marine conductive sediments. For all examples, convergence of the solution that used potentials were significantly quicker than that using the electric field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations137
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207