MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021068408 · doi:10.1190/geo2014-0117.1

Interpolating wide-aperture ground-penetrating radar beyond aliasing

2015· article· en· W2021068408 on OpenAlexaff
Saulo S. Martins, Jandyr M. Travassos

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsOffset (computer science)PrestackInterpolation (computer graphics)GeologyAlgorithmComputer scienceMidpointAliasingGeodesyGround-penetrating radarVariable (mathematics)Filter (signal processing)RadarRemote sensingComputer visionMathematicsGeometrySeismologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Most of the data acquisition in ground-penetrating radar is done along fixed-offset profiles, in which velocity is known only at isolated points in the survey area, at the locations of variable offset gathers such as a common midpoint. We have constructed sparse, heavily aliased, variable offset gathers from several fixed-offset, collinear, profiles. We interpolated those gathers to produce properly sampled counterparts, thus pushing data beyond aliasing. The interpolation methodology estimated nonstationary, adaptive, filter coefficients at all trace locations, including at the missing traces’ corresponding positions, filled with zeroed traces. This is followed by an inversion problem that uses the previously estimated filter coefficients to insert the new, interpolated, traces between the original ones. We extended this two-step strategy to data interpolation by employing a device in which we used filter coefficients from a denser variable offset gather to interpolate the missing traces on a few independently constructed gathers. We applied the methodology on synthetic and real data sets, the latter acquired in the interior of the Antarctic continent. The variable-offset interpolated data opened the door to prestack processing, making feasible the production of a prestack time migrated section and a 2D velocity model for the entire profile. Notwithstanding, we have used a data set obtained in Antarctica; there is no reason the same methodology could not be used somewhere else.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207