MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066815036 · doi:10.1029/2007eo360006

Electromagnetic induction in the Earth

2007· article· en· W2066815036 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Fergurson, Lee Slater, Pilar Queralt, Juanjo Ledo

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsLithosphereGeologyGeophysicsVolcanoElectromagnetic inductionScale (ratio)Mantle (geology)SeismologyEarth scienceTectonicsElectrical resistivity and conductivityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurements of electrical properties of the Earth using electromagnetic induction (EM) can elucidate geological structures and processes ranging from meter to mantle scale. The 18th International Workshop on Electromagnetic Induction in the Earth (EMIW) highlighted how recent theoretical and instrumental advances are being applied in high‐quality EM induction studies from around the world, at lithospheric, crustal, and near‐surface scales. Important aspects of the lithospheric and crustal studies presented included the demonstration of the increased resolution provided by dense two‐dimensional magnetotelluric (MT) profiles and three‐dimensional grids, the common use of the improved impedance tensor decomposition method to correct regional MT responses, widespread consideration of implicitly anisotropic materials within multidimensional MT models, and, in the numerical modeling field, the increased use of unstructured meshes. Review papers provided an overview of the large‐scale EM surveys and spatial variations in the European lithosphere and addressed the role of EM in monitoring seismic and volcanic crustal processes.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207