MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064559229 · doi:10.14288/1.0107402

Curvelet-based ground roll removal

2008· article· en· W2064559229 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurveletReflector (photography)Process (computing)SIGNAL (programming language)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceAlgorithmBlock (permutation group theory)Interference (communication)Relaxation (psychology)GeologyArtificial intelligenceAcousticsPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionOpticsMathematicsPhysicsGeometryTelecommunicationsWavelet transformWavelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have effectively identified and removed ground roll through a twostep process. The first step is to identify the major components of the ground roll through various methods including multiscale separation, directional or frequency filtering or by any other method that identifies the ground roll. Given this estimate for ground roll, the recorded signal is separated during the second step through a block-coordinate relaxation method that seeks the sparsest set for weighted curvelet coefficients of the ground roll and the sought-after reflectivity. The combination of these two methods allows us to separate out the ground roll signal while preserving the reflector information. Since our method is iterative, we have control of the separation process. We successfully tested our algorithm on a real data set with a complex ground roll and reflector structure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.178 · 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