MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Euler deconvolution of the analytic signal and its application to magnetic interpretation

2004· article· en· W2026224084 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconvolutionAnalytic signalEuler's formulaSIGNAL (programming language)Blind deconvolutionAnalytic functionField (mathematics)Mathematical analysisSignal processingAlgorithmMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Euler deconvolution and the analytic signal are both used for semi‐automatic interpretation of magnetic data. They are used mostly to delineate contacts and obtain rapid source depth estimates. For Euler deconvolution, the quality of the depth estimation depends mainly on the choice of the proper structural index, which is a function of the geometry of the causative bodies. Euler deconvolution applies only to functions that are homogeneous. This is the case for the magnetic field due to contacts, thin dikes and poles. Fortunately, many complex geological structures can be approximated by these simple geometries. In practice, the Euler equation is also solved for a background regional field. For the analytic signal, the model used is generally a contact, although other models, such as a thin dike, can be considered. It can be shown that if a function is homogeneous, its analytic signal is also homogeneous. Deconvolution of the analytic signal is then equivalent to Euler deconvolution of the magnetic field with a background field. However, computation of the analytic signal effectively removes the background field from the data. Consequently, it is possible to solve for both the source location and structural index. Once these parameters are determined, the local dip and the susceptibility contrast can be determined from relationships between the analytic signal and the orthogonal gradients of the magnetic field. The major advantage of this technique is that it allows the automatic identification of the type of source. Implementation of this approach is demonstrated for recent high‐resolution survey data from an Archean granite‐greenstone terrane in northern Ontario, Canada.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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