Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polarization of the injection electrodes in resistivity and induced polarization may in some cases result in an anomalous response at the receiving electrodes. This is referred to here as injection electrode overprinting. Overprinting may occur in resistivity measurements when an electrode is used as a receiving electrode immediately following duty as an injection electrode, such as in multi-electrode systems with automatic switching. The circumstances that produce overprinting are demonstrated here and recommendations are made to limit its occurrence and effect. It is found that the overvoltage on injection electrodes is unlikely to exceed a few volts and that the period of rapid, nonlinear, decay is over in a few seconds. Most modern resistivity equipment can easily accommodate potentials with these characteristics as part of spontaneous potential rejection. A simple procedure is recommended to test if overprinting is occuring. Injection sequences with short and long delays between injector-receiver duty should be executed. Any difference in apparent resistivity indicates a possible problem with overprinting. Situations where one of an injection pair has a large surface area and the other a small surface area, as is often the case in pole-pole or pole-dipole surveys, are more likely to be problematic in that the polarization and circuit impedance may depend on the polarity of the pulse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".