MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013190964 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggs035

2-D reconstruction of boundaries with level set inversion of traveltimes

2012· article· en· W2013190964 on OpenAlexaff
Polina Zheglova, Colin G. Farquharson, Charles A. Hurich

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlownessGeologyInversion (geology)BoreholeGeophysicsBoundary (topology)JumpTomographyCrustSeismic tomographyGeodesySeismologyGeometryMathematical analysisMantle (geology)MathematicsOpticsTectonicsGeotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many features in the Earth's crust that involve a jump in physical properties across a sharp boundary. One example is the boundary of an ore body embedded in host rocks. Such well-defined boundaries are often of interest to geophysicists, however traditional minimum-structure inversion methods tend to produce blurred images of the subsurface, where sharp boundaries are not well defined. In this paper, we explore the application of a level set inversion method to recovering a sharp boundary between two slowness values, one characterizing an inclusion, for example, an ore body, the other characterizing a background, for example, host rocks, from first arrival traveltime data. The slowness values are assumed to be known, for example, from sonic logs. We consider the scenario of cross-borehole tomography in two dimensions, however the method is extendible to the 3-D tomography. We test the method on a series of synthetic examples including both fast and slow inclusions. We also investigate numerically the use of straight ray and bent ray forward modelling in the inversion for media with different velocity contrasts.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207