MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981974752 · doi:10.1117/12.383602

<title>Corrected GPR velocity and attenuation tomography of artifacts due to media anisotropy, borehole trajectory error, and instrumental drifts</title>

2000· article· en· W1981974752 on OpenAlexaff
Pascale Sénéchal, Fabrice Hollender, Gilles Bellefleur

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationAnisotropyTomographyBoreholeGeologyAmplitudeInversion (geology)TrajectoryAlgorithmOpticsComputer scienceSeismologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using standard inversion algorithm, velocity and attenuation tomograms can show artifacts which compromise interpretation. These artifacts can be due to errors in borehole trajectory measurements, medium anisotropy, T0 (initial time) or A0 (initial amplitude) drifts. In order to cancel these artifacts, the error sources can be introduced as unknown parameters in inversion algorithms (Hollender, 1999). In this paper, we present results obtained with crosshole radar data, recorded in a limestone quarry. Using the appropriate algorithms, all the artifacts have been cancelled and tomograms show clearly subhorizontal structures in agreement with the quarry stratification. In our data set, results do not reveal significant trajectory error, and T0 and A0 drifts are low. However, the presence of a velocity and attenuation anisotropy appears clearly on the tomograms. In the case of attenuation tomograms, the high anisotropy rates could be explained by the cumulative effect of the partitioning of energy due to reflection and transmission mechanisms at interfaces, and medium anisotropy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.010

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207