MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022505780 · doi:10.1190/1.2056369

The impact of prestack data phase on the AVO interpretation workflow—A case study

2005· article· en· W2022505780 on OpenAlexaff
Rocky Roden, John P. Castagna, Gary E. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrestackWorkflowInterpretation (philosophy)GeologyEconometricsStatisticsSeismologyComputer scienceMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the conventional approach of interpreting stacked seismic data, it is quite common to rotate the phase of the data to match synthetic correlations and/or to get isolated reflections in the data as close as possible to zero phase. Understanding the phase of the data is extremely important in the interpretation workflow and has significant implications for the final interpretation and drilling of wells. This functionality is available on most interpretation systems today. What is not routine in the normal interpretation process is to phase rotate gathers to determine how this affects the final stacked volume, the analysis of the prestack data, and ultimately the final interpretation of the prospect.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207