Blind Test of Methods for Obtaining 2-D Near-Surface Seismic Velocity Models from First-Arrival Traveltimes
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 Seismic refraction methods are used in environmental and engineering studies to image the shallow subsurface. We present a blind test of inversion and tomographic refraction analysis methods using a synthetic first-arrival-time dataset that was made available to the community in 2010. The data are realistic in terms of the near-surface velocity model, shot-receiver geometry and the data's frequency and added noise. Fourteen estimated models were determined by ten participants using eight different inversion algorithms, with the true model unknown to the participants until it was revealed at a session at the 2011 SAGEEP meeting. The estimated models are generally consistent in terms of their large-scale features, demonstrating the robustness of refraction data inversion in general, and the eight inversion algorithms in particular. When compared to the true model, all of the estimated models contain a smooth expression of its two main features: a large offset in the bedrock and the top of a steeply dipping low-velocity fault zone. The estimated models do not contain a subtle low-velocity zone and other fine-scale features, in accord with conventional wisdom. Together, the results support confidence in the reliability and robustness of modern refraction inversion and tomographic methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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