MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084061825 · doi:10.1190/1.3104072

Fresnel zone binning: Application to 3D seismic fold and coverage assessments

2009· article· en· W2084061825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFresnel zoneOffset (computer science)Fresnel integralGeologyGeodesyFresnel numberSeismic zoneSeismologyTransition zoneFresnel diffractionGeophysicsOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsDiffraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a parallel article submitted to GEOPHYSICS, I have outlined the derivation of size and shape for Fresnel zones as a function of offset and velocity gradient. The fundamental conclusion of this analysis is that the Fresnel zone computed using a zero-offset assumption and constant velocity is a poor representation of the “area of influence” of the Fresnel zone in a practical sense. The relevance and practical application of these Fresnel zone sizes is described in terms of current “binning” in 3D seismic (particularly marine 3D), and the Fresnel zone analysis leads to an alternate method of assessing adequate coverage in a 3D survey.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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