MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011548348 · doi:10.1117/12.383480

<title>Estimation and correction of wavelet dispersion in GPR data</title>

2000· article· en· W2011548348 on OpenAlexaff
James Irving, Rosemary Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarWaveletAttenuationGeologyDispersion (optics)RadarInverseAcousticsComputer scienceMathematicsOpticsPhysicsGeometryArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wavelet dispersion caused by frequency-dependent attenuation is a common and significant problem in ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. In the radar image, it is displayed as a characteristic 'blurriness' that increases with depth. Correcting for wavelet dispersion in GPR data is an important step that should be performed before either qualitative interpretation or quantitative determination of subsurface electrical properties are attempted. Over the bandwidth of a GPR wavelet, the attenuation of electromagnetic waves in many geologic materials is approximately linear with frequency. For this reason, the change in shape of a radar pulse as it propagates through these materials can be described using one parameter, Q*, which is related to the slope of the linear region. Assuming that all subsurface materials can be characterized by some Q* value, the problem of estimating and correcting for wavelet dispersion in GPR data becomes one of determining Q* in the subsurface and deconvolving its effects through the use of an inverse Q filter. A method for the estimation of Q* from GPR data based on a technique developed for seismic attenuation tomography is presented. Essentially, Q* is determined from the downshift in the dominant frequency of the GPR wavelet with time down a trace. Once Q* has been obtained, we propose an inverse Q filtering technique based on a causal, linear model for constant Q as a means of removing wavelet dispersion. Initial tests on field data indicate that this technique is very effective at enhancing the resolution of the GPR image.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.036

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207