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 OpenAlexaff
James Irving, Rosemary Knight

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations145
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207