2013 SEG Forum on Microseismic Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A forum on microseismic technology took place on 22–24 January 2013 in Napa, California. It was the second of its kind; the first was held in April 2008 at Ucross, Wyoming, whose purpose was to bring together industry experts and capture the state of the art at the time. This year, the focus was on identifying and understanding the differences between data recorded at or near the earth's surface and data recorded in deep boreholes. To give the field the greatest possible impetus, attendants were selected based on their contribution potential with respect to the scope of the forum. From 160 applicants, a total of 74 attendees was selected, out of which 27 presented orally and eight presented posters. The forum's scope was addressed over two busy days with sessions on case studies, feasibility studies, processing, uncertainties, and the road ahead. Two lunchtime presentations addressed subjects of wide interest not covered in these sessions. No proceedings were planned in order to encourage the sharing of otherwise confidential information.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.035 |
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".