MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066670476 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0425.1

3D migration for rapid imaging of total-magnetic-intensity data

2012· article· en· W2066670476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael S. Zhdanov, Xiaojun Liu, Glenn A. Wilson, Le Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Utah
KeywordsA priori and a posterioriInversion (geology)GeologySynthetic dataRaw dataRegularization (linguistics)AlgorithmComputer scienceSeismologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Three-dimensional potential field migration for rapid imaging of entire total-magnetic-intensity (TMI) surveys is introduced, and real time applications are discussed. Potential field migration is based on a direct integral transformation of the measured TMI data into a 3D susceptibility model, which could be directly used for interpretation or as an a priori model for subsequent regularized inversion. The advantage of migration is that it does not require any a priori information about the type of the sources present, nor does it rely on regularization as per inversion. Migration is very stable with respect to noise in measured data because the transform is reduced to the downward continuation of a function that is analytical everywhere in the subsurface. The 3D migration of TMI data acquired over the Reid-Mahaffy test site in Ontario, Canada is used as a test study. Our results are shown to be consistent with those results obtained from 3D regularized inversion as well as the known geology of the area. Interestingly, the migration of raw TMI data produces results very similar to the inversion of diurnally corrected and microleveled TMI data, suggesting that migration could be applied directly to real-time imaging during the acquisition.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207