MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984886644 · doi:10.1190/1.2953291

High-precision potential-field and gradient-component transformations and derivative computations using cubic B-splines

2008· article· en· W1984886644 on OpenAlexafffund
Bingzhu Wang, Edward S. Krebes, D. Ravat

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BCUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFast Fourier transformComputationAlgorithmGridInterpolation (computer graphics)Directional derivativeSpline interpolationMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Potential-field and gradient-component transformations and derivative computations are necessary for many techniques of data enhancement, direct interpretation, and inversion. We advance new unified formulas for fast interpolation, differentiation, and integration and propose flexible high-precision algorithms to perform 3D and 2D potential-field- and gradient component transformations and derivative computations in the space domain using cubic B-splines. The spline-based algorithms are applicable to uniform or nonuniform rectangular grids for the 3D case and to regular or irregular grids for the 2D case. The fast Fourier transform (FFT) techniques require uniform grid spacing. The spline-based horizontal-derivative computations can be done at any point in the computational domain, whereas the FFT methods use only grid points. Comparisons between spline and FFT techniques through two gravity-gradient examples and one magnetic example show that results computed with the spline technique agree better with the exact theoretical data than do results computed with the FFT technique.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207