MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014417544 · doi:10.1190/tle29020132.1

Seam update: Models for EM and gravity simulations

2010· article· en· W2014417544 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Stefani, Michael A. Frenkel, Neda Bundalo, R.S. Day, Michael Fehler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsGeologyEarth modelRelevance (law)GeophysicsSeismologyGeneral partnershipEngineeringElectrical resistivity and conductivityElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of SEAM is to conduct geophysical modeling of relevance to the petroleum industry. Most of the discussion to date regarding the project and its Earth model has focused on its seismic aspects. Since the initial modeling objective of the SEAM Phase I project was variable-density acoustic simulation, P-wave velocity and density were the primary parameters defined for the model. However, the project is also simulating gravity, controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM), and magnetotelluric (MT) data acquisition, which require the construction of a resistivity volume as well. These nonseismic simulations are funded under a research subcontract (#07121–2001) from the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA).

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207