MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005213235 · doi:10.1190/1.1444842

Multicomponent georadar data: Some important implications for data acquisition and processing

2000· article· en· W2005213235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarGeologyDipoleReflection (computer programming)Dispersion (optics)ScatteringGeophysicsRadarAcousticsSeismologyComputer scienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many seismic reflection processing techniques are applied routinely to ground-penetrating radar (georadar or GPR) data. Although similarities exist between seismic (acoustic) and radar wave propagation there are some significant differences, some of the most important of which are associated with the dipole nature (1) of georadar sources and receivers and (2) of elemental sources used to represent scattering bodies. Neglecting the dipole character of electromagnetic surveys may result in incomplete or biased images of the subsurface. In an attempt to understand better the consequences of recording dipolar wavefields, we have simulated numerous multicomponent georadar data sets. These simulations are based on the weak scattering (Born) approximation, such that point heterogeneities in the subsurface can be represented by infinitesimal dipoles with moments parallel and proportional to the incident georadar wavefields. The effects of depolarization and dispersion are not included. Nevertheless, many subsurface structures can be modeled by suites of appropriately distributed infinitesimal dipoles. Georadar images of even the simplest subsurface structures are shown to depend strongly on the relative orientations and positions of the source and receiver antennas. A positive aspect of dipolar wavefields is that multicomponent georadar profiles contain information on the locations of both in-plane and out-of-plane structures. Furthermore, “pseudoscalar” wavefields can be simulated from coincident georadar data sets acquired with two pairs of parallel source-receiver antennas, one oriented perpendicular to the other. Pseudoscalar georadar data, which are characterized by low degrees of directionality, can be processed (including migration) confidently using standard seismic processing software (assuming that dispersion is not a major problem). To illustrate the advantages of multicomponent georadar data, two field examples are presented. One demonstrates the value of recording dual-component georadar data along isolated profiles; the other shows the benefits of combining 3-D georadar data sets acquired with dual component source-receiver antenna pairs to form pseudoscalar wavefield images.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.256 · 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