MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022423704 · doi:10.1190/1.2159049

Waveform tomography at a groundwater contamination site: VSP-surface data set

2006· article· en· W2022423704 on OpenAlexaff
Fuchun Gao, A. Levander, R. G. Pratt, C. A. Zelt, G. Fradelizio

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyWaveformTomographySeismologyVertical seismic profileLithologyGeodesySeismic tomographyGroundwaterData setMineralogyGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringPetrologyOpticsStatisticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Application of 2D frequency-domain waveform tomography to a data set from a high-resolution vertical seismic profiling (VSP) experiment at a groundwater contamination site in Hill Air Force Base (HAFB), Utah, reveals a surprisingly complicated shallow substructure with a resolution of approximately 1.5 m. Variance in the waveform misfit function is reduced 69.4% by using an initial velocity model from first-arrival traveltime tomography. The waveform tomography model suggests (1) a low-velocity layer at 1 to 4 m depth, (2) a high-vertical-velocity gradient of 80 m/s/m on average, and (3) severe lateral variations — velocity contrasts as large as about 200 m/s occur in a distance as short as 1.5 m. The model is well correlated with lithologic logs and is interpreted geologically. A Q-value of 20 is estimated for the target area. The extreme lateral and vertical variations of the subsurface compromise many standard seismic processing methods.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations57
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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