MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037813559 · doi:10.1190/1.1635042

3D resistivity mapping of airborne EM data

2003· article· en· W2037813559 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zhiyi Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubspace topologyConjugate gradient methodInverse problemNonlinear systemSolverInversion (geology)AlgorithmElectrical resistivity and conductivityOperator (biology)InverseLinear mapComputer scienceMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryGeologyArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 3D resistivity mapping technique has been developed to provide fast estimates of resistivity distributions in airborne electromagnetic surveys. This proposed 3D mapping method consists of an approximate 3D linear inverse operator and a generalized subspace solver. The 3D inverse operator can be generated using any forward approximation that is linear in resistivity. The generalized subspace method is an alternative to the conjugate gradient method, and it reduces the original large linear system of equations to a much smaller but nonlinear one that is solved iteratively. The major benefit of using generalized subspace methods is that subspace vectors can be built based upon physical principles such as skin and investigation depths. Since the 3D mapping is a linear inverse problem, no iteration, and thus no forward modeling nor sensitivity updating, is needed. The 3D resistivity-mapping technique can be used directly to estimate 3D resistivity distribution or to provide a model update during an intermediate iteration in a nonlinear 3D inversion. Synthetic and field data examples indicate that the 3D mapping can provide quantitative information about the resistivity and spatial distributions of the 3D targets.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207