MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995926167 · doi:10.1029/2005eo180001

Advances in controlled‐source seismic imaging

2005· article· en· W1995926167 on OpenAlexaff
J. A. Hole, C. A. Zelt, R. G. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeismometerSeismologyGeologyCrustWaveformVertical seismic profileInversion (geology)Seismic tomographyGeophysicsComputer scienceMantle (geology)TelecommunicationsTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current rapid growth in the number of seismometers available to the research community, combined with increasing computer power, will allow improvement in the type and quality of seismic images of the crust and lithosphere. An example of improved imaging capability is the inversion of the full seismic waveform, rather than solely travel times, in controlled‐source surveys (seismic refraction or reflection using human‐induced ground shaking). At the 12th Deep Seismic Methods workshop in 2003, sponsored by the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior (IASPEI), an analysis of computer‐generated data exemplified the potential of increased source and station density. The synthetic seismic data set was generated from a geologic model that includes large‐, medium‐, and small‐scale stochastic variation. The source and seismometer spacing mimic imminent community capabilities. The Earth model was kept secret, and the data were made available for analysis (http://crust. geol.vt.edu/hole/ccss/). Figure 1 illustrates the results of blind travel time and waveform tomography applied to the data.The images, described in more detail below, illustrate an excellent match to the true Earth model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207