MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077947191 · doi:10.1121/1.2736514

Uncertainty estimation in seismo-acoustic reflection travel time inversion

2007· article· en· W2077947191 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Dettmer, Stan E. Dosso, Charles W. Holland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)CovarianceGeologyBayesian probabilityGeodesyStatisticsCovariance matrixMathematicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a nonlinear Bayesian inversion for high-resolution seabed reflection travel time data including rigorous uncertainty estimation and examination of statistical assumptions. Travel time data are picked on seismo-acoustic traces and inverted for a layered sediment sound-velocity model. Particular attention is paid to picking errors which are often biased, correlated, and nonstationary. Non-Toeplitz data covariance matrices are estimated and included in the inversion along with unknown travel time offset (bias) parameters to account for these errors. Simulated experiments show that neglecting error covariances and biases can cause misleading inversion results with unrealistically high confidence. The inversion samples the posterior probability density and provides a solution in terms of one- and two-dimensional marginal probability densities, correlations, and credibility intervals. Statistical assumptions are examined through the data residuals with rigorous statistical tests. The method is applied to shallow-water data collected on the Malta Plateau during the SCARAB98 experiment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations82
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207