MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017675174 · doi:10.1190/1.1512753

Finite-difference modeling of SH-wave propagation in nonwelded contact media

2002· article· en· W2017675174 on OpenAlexaff
Raphaël A. Slawinski, Edward S. Krebes

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationDiscontinuity (linguistics)GridSeismic waveBoundary value problemFinite differenceBoundary (topology)Wave propagationMathematical analysisGeologyGeometryMathematicsPhysicsGeophysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many geological structures of interest are known to exhibit fracturing. Fracturing directly affects seismic wave propagation because, depending on its scale, fracturing may give rise to scattering and/or anisotropy. A fracture may be described mathematically as an interface in nonwelded contact (i.e., as a displacement discontinuity). This poses a difficulty for finite-difference modeling of seismic wave propagation in fractured media, because the standard heterogeneous approach assumes welded contact. In the past, this difficulty has been circumvented by incorporating nonwelded contact into the medium parameters using equivalent medium theory. We present an alternate method based on the homogeneous approach to finite differencing, whereby nonwelded contact boundary conditions are imposed explicitly. For simplicity, we develop the method in the SH-wave case. In the homogeneous approach, nonwelded contact boundary conditions are discretized by introducing auxiliary, so-called fictitious, grid points. Wavefield values at fictitious grid points are then used in the discrete equation of motion, so that the time-evolved wavefield satisfies the correct boundary conditions. Although not as general as the heterogeneous approach, the homogeneous approach has the advantage of being relatively simple and manifestly satisfying nonwelded contact boundary conditions. For fractures aligned with the numerical grid, the homogeneous and heterogeneous approaches yield identical results. In particular, in both approaches nonwelded contact results in a larger maximum stable time step size than in the welded contact case.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations46
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207