MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037934142 · doi:10.1190/1.1581068

Removal of wavelet dispersion from ground-penetrating radar data

2003· article· en· W2037934142 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarAttenuationWaveletGeologyRadarDispersion (optics)AcousticsOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wavelet dispersion caused by frequency-dependent attenuation is a common occurrence in ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data, and is displayed in the radar image as a characteristic “blurriness” that increases with depth. Correcting for wavelet dispersion is an important step that should be performed before GPR data are used for either qualitative interpretation or the quantitative determination of subsurface electrical properties. Over the bandwidth of a GPR wavelet, the attenuation of electromagnetic waves in many geological materials is approximately linear with frequency. As a result, the change in shape of a radar pulse as it propagates through these materials can be well described using one parameter, Q∗, related to the slope of the linear region. Assuming that all subsurface materials can be characterized by some Q∗ value, the problem of estimating and correcting for wavelet dispersion becomes one of determining Q∗ in the subsurface and deconvolving its effects using an inverse-Q filter. We present a method for the estimation of subsurface Q∗ from reflection GPR data based on a technique developed for seismic attenuation tomography. Essentially, Q∗ is computed from the downshift in the dominant frequency of the GPR signal with time. Once Q∗ has been obtained, we propose a damped-least-squares inverse-Q filtering scheme based on a causal, linear model for constant-Q wave propagation as a means of removing wavelet dispersion. Tests on synthetic and field data indicate that these steps can be very effective at enhancing the resolution of the GPR image.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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