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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three‐dimensional (3D) inversion program is developed to interpret gravity data using a selection of constraints. This selection includes minimum distance, flatness, smoothness and compactness constraints, which can be combined using a Lagrangian formulation. A multigrid technique is also implemented to resolve separately large and short gravity wavelengths. The subsurface in the survey area is divided into rectangular prismatic blocks and the problem is solved by calculating the model parameters, i.e. the densities of each block. Weights are given to each block depending on depth, a priori information on density and the density range allowed for the region under investigation. The present computer code is tested on modelled data for a dipping dike and multiple bodies. Results combining different constraints and a weight depending on depth are shown for the dipping dike. The advantages and behaviour of each method are compared in the 3D reconstruction. Recovery of geometry (depth, size) and density distribution of the original model is dependent on the set of constraints used. From experimentation, the best combination of constraints for multiple bodies seems to be flatness and a minimum volume for the multiple bodies. The inversion method is tested on real gravity data from the Rouyn‐Noranda (Quebec) mining camp. The 3D inversion model for the first 10 km is in agreement with the known major lithological contacts at the surface; it enables the determination of the geometry of plutons and intrusive rocks at depth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it