Field data comparison: 3C‐2D data acquisition with geophones and accelerometers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on a field comparison of different seismic motion sensors. The CREWES Project at the University of Calgary acquired a 3C‐2D seismic line in the Spring Coulee area of Southern Alberta in January 2008. This was a unique opportunity to compare two types of multicomponent sensors with acquisition occurring at the same time and with the same receiver parameters. This 6.52 km 2D acquisition was laid out with a digital MEMS accelerometer: the DSU3‐428 and the accompanying Sercel 428XL recording system; as well as an analog 3C geophone: the SM‐7 high resolution geophone element placed in a modified PE‐6/S nail type case co‐developed by Sensor Nederland (A Division of ION Geophysical) and ARAM Systems with the accompanying ARAM Aries MC recording system. There have been limited acquisition comparison tests performed and/or published with MEMS accelerometers and analog geophones in the past; the purpose of this study is to compare data acquired with single‐point 3C receivers laid out side‐side in a commercial recording environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".