MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079361663 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0082.1

Interferometric application of static corrections

2012· article· en· W2079361663 on OpenAlexafffund
David C. Henley

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPenn West Exploration (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersShell Canada
KeywordsStaticsReflection (computer programming)Seismic interferometryDeconvolutionConsistency (knowledge bases)Seismic traceGeologyInterferometrySurface (topology)Set (abstract data type)GeodesyAlgorithmSeismologyComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryWaveletOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Correcting reflection seismic data for the effects of near-surface irregularities is a persistent problem usually addressed at least partly by static corrections applied to traces. However, there are areas where static corrections are ineffective because basic assumptions are violated. The assumptions which fail most often are surface consistency and stationarity, which are central to the concept of static corrections. To address this failure, I mapped raw seismic traces into the radial trace domain and gathered the radial traces by common surface angle. Then I imposed a more general constraint, raypath consistency, which simultaneously introduces nonstationarity. Conventional static correction also assumes implicitly that reflection events consist of single discrete arrivals. This is not true, however, in regions where near-surface multipathing and scattering complicate reflection event waveforms. Borrowing from recent work in seismic inferometry, I removed the single-arrival assumption by using trace crosscorrelations to estimate and deconvolve surface functions from traces, rather than applying time shifts. The entire crosscorrelation function is used in every case, so both timing and waveform variations are removed by the deconvolution. The operation is applied in the common-angle domain, so it is raypath consistent and nonstationary. The method, dubbed “raypath interferometry,” was applied successfully to a set of 2D Arctic field data with serious surface consistency and multipath problems, and to a set of 3C 2D land data with very large S-wave receiver statics. Although intended primarily for use on seismic data for which conventional statics corrections fail, raypath interferometry can be used on any seismic data; its assumptions include single-arrival events and surface consistency as special cases.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207