Joint inversion of surface and three-component borehole magnetic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The inversion of magnetic data is inherently non- unique with respect to the distance between the source and observation locations. This manifests itself as an ambiguity in the source depth when surface data are inverted and as an ambiguity in the distance between the source and boreholes if borehole data are inverted. Joint inversion of surface and borehole data can help to reduce this nonuniqueness. To achieve this, we develop an algorithm for inverting data sets that have arbitrary observation locations in boreholes and above the surface. The algorithm depends upon weighting functions that counteract the geometric decay of magnetic kernels with distance from the observer. We apply these weighting functions to the inversion of three-component magnetic data collected in boreholes and then to the joint inversion of surface and borehole data. Both synthetic and field data sets are used to illustrate the new inversion algorithm. When borehole data are inverted directly, three-component data are far more useful in constructing good susceptibility models than are single-component data. However, either can be used effectively in a joint inversion with surface data to produce models that are superior to those obtained by inversion of surface data alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".