MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018262010 · doi:10.1190/geo2012-0100.1

High-precision estimation of split PS-wave time delays and polarization directions

2013· article· en· W2018262010 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Haacke

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsAzimuthPolarization (electrochemistry)Inversion (geology)PrestackCovarianceGeologyGeodesyAlgorithmComputer scienceOpticsMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The measurement of split PS-wave time delays and polarization directions is notoriously difficult in field data, partly because the signals are small and overprinted by competing mechanisms. This contribution describes a new processing method that suppresses many of the overprinted traveltime and amplitude anomalies, allowing depth-averaged split PS-wave time delays and polarization directions to be measured simply and precisely. These depth-averaged properties are then inverted using a simple forward model, allowing an earth model of split PS-wave time delays and polarization azimuths to be estimated without the need for layer stripping. In the field data used as an example, the processing and inversion methods are used to estimate split PS-wave time delays and polarization directions for ten layers spanning about 500 m depth from the seabed downward. Inversions using data-error covariances estimated from prestack data show model uncertainties less than 0.3 ms of time delay and 3° of polarization azimuth. However, it is clear that if the data-error covariances cannot be estimated from prestack data, due to low fold for example, model uncertainties would rise considerably. Repeating the inversions using data-error covariances of a postulated form leads to a range of maximum-likelihood models. When the data-error covariances cannot be estimated from prestack data, it seems reasonable to report precision levels implied by the spread of maximum-likelihood models, which in this case is up to 0.5 ms of time delay and 20° of polarization azimuth. The principal achievement of this processing and inversion scheme is to constrain a relatively large number of depth layers with similar levels of model uncertainty. The depth resolution available to this new method may have important implications for the development of tight-gas and shale-gas plays, in which variations of stress, strain, and fracture properties in discrete layers are important.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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