MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001401410 · doi:10.1190/1.1518439

Validating seismic attribute studies: Beyond statistics

2002· article· en· W2001401410 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce S. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broadly defined, seismic attribute studies (“attribute studies”) are attempts to use attributes derived from seismic data to predict the distribution of physical properties (e.g., porosity, lithology, bed thickness) of the strata being imaged seismically. Attribute studies may be either quantitative (i.e., the objective is to make numerical predictions of properties of interest throughout the seismic coverage) or qualitative (i.e., the objective is to find geobodies sharing similar physical properties). In either case, the interpreter must decide which attributes to derive, how to analyze the attributes, and (not least importantly) how to test the results of the correlation exercise before making exploration or development decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations42
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207