Interactive inverse methodology applied to stratigraphic forward modelling
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 An effective inverse scheme that can be applied to complex 3-D hydrodynamic forward models has so far proved elusive. In this paper we investigate an interactive inverse methodology that may offer a possible way forward. The scheme builds on previous work in linking expert review of alternate output to rapid modification of input variables. This was tested using the SEDSIM 3-D stratigraphic forward-modelling program, varying nine input variables in a synthetic example. Ten SEDSIM simulations were generated, with subtle differences in input, and five dip sections (fences) were displayed for each simulation. A geoscientist ranked the lithological distribution in order of similarity to the true sections (the true input values were not disclosed during the experiment). The two or three highest ranked simulations then acted as seed for the next round of ten simulations, which were compared in turn. After 90 simulations a satisfactory match between the target and the model was found and the experiment was terminated. Subsequent analysis showed that the estimated input values were ‘close’ to the true values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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