MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic refraction traveltime inversion for static corrections in a glaciated shield rock environment: a case study

2009· article· en· W2050381292 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Schijns, Suvi Heinonen, Douglas R. Schmitt, Pekka Heikkinen, Ilmo Kukkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBedrockInversion (geology)Seismic refractionSeismologyEngineering geologyRegional geologyEconomic geologyEnvironmental geologyHydrogeologySeismic inversionGemologyAzimuthGeophysicsGeomorphologyTectonicsGeotechnical engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A traveltime inversion technique is applied to model the upper ∼40 m of the subsurface of a glaciated shield rock area in order to calculate static corrections for a multi‐azimuth multi‐depth walk‐away vertical seismic profile and a surface seismic reflection profile. First break information from a seismic refraction survey is used in conjunction with a ray‐tracing program and an iterative damped least‐squares inversion algorithm to create a two‐dimensional model of the subsurface. The layout of the seismic survey required crooked seismic lines and substantial gaps in the source and receiver coverage to be accounted for. Additionally, there is substantial topographical variation and a complex geology consisting of glaciofluvial sediment and glacial till overlying a crystalline bedrock. The resolution and reliability of the models is measured through a parameter perturbation technique, normalized χ2 values, root means square traveltime residuals and comparison to known geology.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207