Performance of Active and Passive Methods for Measuring Low-Frequency Surface Wave Dispersion Curves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the consistency between surface wave dispersion curves measured at wavelengths of up to 600 m using active and passive methods at sites in the Mississippi Embayment. Large-diameter (200 m) circular receiver arrays were deployed at five deep soil sites located in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri to record ambient ground vibrations at low frequencies. Measurements were performed at the same locations using linear receiver arrays and actively generated low-frequency energy using the recently developed Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) field vibrator (termed Liquidator). Characteristics of the ambient wavefield measured at the five sites in the Mississippi Embayment are presented along with comparisons between the surface wave dispersion curves obtained from the active and passive measurements at each site. The ambient wavefield measurements exhibited peak levels in the frequency range of 1–5 Hz. Surface wave dispersion curves developed from frequency-wavenumber (f-k) processing of the active and passive methods were in good agreement at four of the sites, with phase velocities from the passive measurements within 5–10 % of the active-source measurements out to wavelengths of about 550 m. Improved comparisons were obtained at the fifth site by applying high-resolution f-k processing.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".