Seismic imaging and velocity analysis for an Alberta Foothills seismic survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seismic imaging of complex structures from the western Canadian Foothills can be achieved by applying the closely coupled processes of velocity analysis and depth migration. For the purposes of defining these structures in the Shaw Basing area of western Alberta, we performed a series of tests on both synthetic and real data to find optimum imaging procedures for handling large topographic relief, near-surface velocity variations, and the complex structural geology of steeply dipping formations. To better understand the seismic processing problems, we constructed a typical foothills geological model that included thrust faults and duplex structures, computed the model responses, and then compared the performance of different migration algorithms, including the explicit finite difference (f-x) and Kirchhoff integral methods. When the correct velocity was used in the migration tests, the f-x method was the most effective in migration from topography. In cases where the velocity model was not assumed known, we determined a macrovelocity model by performing migration/velocity analysis by using smiles and frowns in common image gathers and by using depth-focusing analysis. In applying depth imaging to the seismic survey from the Shaw Basing area, we found that imaging problems were caused partly by near-surface velocity problems, which were not anticipated in the modeling study. Several comparisons of different migration approaches for these data indicated that prestack depth migration from topography provided the best imaging results when near-surface velocity information was incorporated. Through iterative and interpretive migration/velocity analysis, we built a macrovelocity model for the final prestack depth migration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".