MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044954426 · doi:10.1190/1.1845219

Time‐lapse impedance inversion using hybrid data transformation and the spike deconvolution method

2004· article· en· W2044954426 on OpenAlexaff
Yajun Zhang, Douglas R. Schmitt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeconvolutionSpike (software development)Inversion (geology)Computer scienceElectrical impedanceBlind deconvolutionTransformation (genetics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringGeologyElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time‐lapse inversion is performed on the difference traces between a monitor and a reference seismic trace. When the underlying difference of the earth's response is sparse and spiky, a spike deconvolution method is preferred for inverting the reflectivity to logarithmic impedance. However, when the structure consists of subresolution gradient ramps or thin layers, sparse spike deconvolution methods can fail to correctly locate the reflectors. A new four‐step method is developed to deal with this situation in the context of time‐lapse monitoring. The processes require some interpretation or expectation of the change in the structure as the first step requires that the difference trace be either differentiated or integrated. Once an appropriate selection is made, a recently developed sparse spike deconvolution algorithm is used to invert the reflectivity which is then converted to impedance. Here the technique is applied to two different synthetic data sets and shows good results even with relatively high 20% Gaussian noise added. We are currently applying this technique to a unique series of high resolution time‐lapse profiles acquired over a steam injection zone.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207