MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998802746 · doi:10.1190/1.3059142

Characterization of frequency‐dependent magnetic susceptibility in UXO electromagnetic geophysics

2008· article· en· W1998802746 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Meglich, Yaoguo Li, Douglas W. Oldenburg, Remke L. Van Dam, Stephen Billings

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophysicsCharacterization (materials science)Extremely low frequencyMagnetic susceptibilityPhysicsMagnetic fieldGeologyCondensed matter physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soils at many locations that have their origin in volcanic parent material and have undergone extensive weathering often exhibit strong frequency‐dependent magnetic susceptibilities. The presence of such susceptibility has a profound effect on electromagnetic induction data acquired in such environments. Their transient electromagnetic response is characterized by a t−1 decay that is strong enough to mask UXO responses. In a field study and associated laboratory work on characterizing the frequency‐dependent magnetic susceptibility and its influence on transient electromagnetic data, we collected soil samples on the surface and in soil pits from the Island of Kaho'olawe, Hawaii, and measured their frequency dependent magnetic susceptibilities. We present the details of the field investigation, confirm previous theoretical work with field and laboratory measurements, characterize the susceptibility with a Cole‐Cole model, and investigate the response specific to the measured susceptibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207