MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084841842 · doi:10.1190/1.2163911

The relationship between local wavenumber and analytic signal in magnetic interpretation

2005· article· en· W2084841842 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Pilkington, Pierre Keating

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavenumberInterpretation (philosophy)Analytic signalSIGNAL (programming language)GeophysicsGeologyMathematicsSignal processingComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, a number of automated methods for source location from 2D (profile) magnetic data have been developed, based on either the local wavenumber (Thurston and Smith, 1997; Smith et al., 1998; Thurston et al., 2002; Salem et al., 2005; Smith and Salem, 2005) or the amplitude of the analytic signal (Hsu et al., 1996; Bastani and Pedersen, 2001; Salem and Ravat, 2003; Salem et al., 2004; Salem, 2005). The main advantage of using derived quantities such as the local wavenumber (LW) and amplitude of the analytic signal (AS) is that they are generally independent of source magnetization and dip effects, therefore allowing positional parameters such as depth and horizontal location to be determined more directly than from the magnetic field.

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 score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207