MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077294437 · doi:10.1029/2001jb001692

Signal‐to‐noise ratios of teleseismic receiver functions and effectiveness of stacking for their enhancement

2003· article· en· W2077294437 on OpenAlexaff
Igor B. Morozov, K. G. Dueker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDefense Threat Reduction AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSIGNAL (programming language)StackingNoise (video)AmplitudeComputer scienceImage qualityGeologySignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)AcousticsOpticsRemote sensingPhysicsImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceNuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for the measurement of spatially variable signal‐to‐noise (S/N) ratios in multichannel teleseismic receiver function (RF) images. The S/N ratio is defined as a measure of coherency of the final image, and the approach is applicable to any RF imaging technique that employs mapping of the records into depth followed by their summation as the final signal enhancement step. In such methods, all of the converted phases become horizontally aligned in the depth domain, and their coherent (signal) and incoherent (noise) components can be estimated by using stacking statistics. For 10 locations along two subarrays of the Continental Dynamics of Rocky Mountains Project (CD‐ROM) teleseismic array, after a limited RF editing, we apply our method to the image resulting from three‐dimensional (3‐D) prestack RF depth migration. The resulting amplitude S/N values to vary from 0.1 to 0.3 in the individual RFs and from 1 to 5 in the final image, with significant spatial variability. These moderate S/N values argue in favor of sampling redundancy achieved in array recording and multichannel RF processing. In order to further reduce noise in RF images, denser and longer deployments or additional signal enhancement techniques are advisable. Because of its ability to provide direct assessment of image quality in three dimensions, including its dependence on the frequency band and data coverage, our method can also be potentially used for real‐time array tuning and image focusing required for moving arrays proposed for the USArray program.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207