Geometrical considerations in the acquisition of borehole interferometric data for imaging near-vertical features: Design of field experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Seismic interferometry applied to walkaway vertical seismic profile data has significant potential for imaging the steeply dipping structures often encountered in hard-rock minerals exploration. Using the interferometry process, surface shots can be redatumed to the borehole receivers resulting in virtual shot gathers. The virtual shot gathers can then be processed using a standard common midpoint (CMP) processing flow. Carrying out this procedure for a subvertical borehole results in a geometry that is optimal for imaging structures that are near vertical. Field acquisition parameters play a critical role in recovering reliable virtual source images. We evaluated the major factors that play a role in designing a field acquisition program with the objective of providing guidance to field practitioners. The major issue to be considered is insuring that correlation gathers created in the interferometry process have a stationary phase component that when summed produces events with correct timing and cancellation of nonstationary components. Consistent with previous work, the ray-tracing-based analysis identified the surface source spacing, surface source aperture, and dominant frequency as the most critical parameters. The analysis indicated that because of the high apparent velocities typically encountered in hard rock terrains, a surface source spacing of 20 m and an aperture of 1000 m will result in stationary phase components and avoid spatial alias in the correlation gathers for frequencies as high as 80 Hz. However, closer spacing of the surface sources provided more traces in the correlation gathers resulting in fewer artifacts during summation. These results were further verified by acoustic wave modeling that provided data from more complex targets that were processed through a complete interferometry and CMP flow. The analysis indicated that with care in designing field acquisition parameters, seismic interferometry is realizable within the terrain and access restrictions imposed by many mining camps.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".