MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996493171 · doi:10.1029/2007gl031932

Empirical transfer functions: Application to determination of outermost core velocity structure using <i>SmKS</i> phases

2007· article· en· W1996493171 on OpenAlexaff
C. Alexandrakis, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformSeismogramDeconvolutionTransfer functionCore (optical fiber)GeologyGaussianStack (abstract data type)Computational physicsPhysicsOpticsComputer scienceSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SmKS waves provide good resolution of outer‐core velocity structure, but are affected by heterogeneity in the D″ region. We have developed an Empirical Transfer Function (ETF) technique that transforms a reference pulse (here, SmKS) into a target waveform (SKKS) by: (1) time‐windowing the respective pulses, (2) applying Wiener deconvolution, and (3) convolving the output with a Gaussian waveform. Common source and path effects are implicitly removed by this process. We combine ETFs from 446 broadband seismograms to produce a global stack, from which S3KS‐SKKS differential time can be measured accurately. As a result of stacking, the scatter in our measurements (0.43 s) is much less than the 1.29 s scatter in previous compilations. Although our data do not uniquely constrain outermost core velocities, we show that the fit of most standard models can be improved by perturbing the outermost core velocity. Our best‐fitting model is formed using IASP91 with PREM‐like velocity at the top of the core.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207