MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086968765 · doi:10.1190/1.1816660

Seismic interpretation of sonic logs

2001· article· it· W2086968765 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Bork, Lawrence C. Wood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInterpretation (philosophy)SeismologyGeophysicsPetroleum engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PreviousNext No AccessSEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2001Seismic interpretation of sonic logsAuthors: Jonathan BorkLawrence C. WoodJonathan BorkApache Corporation and Lawrence C. WoodGeophysical Consulting Inc.https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1816660 SectionsAboutPDF/ePub ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1816660FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByMultichannel Semi-blind Deconvolution (MSBD) of seismic signalsSignal Processing, Vol. 135A prestack basis pursuit seismic inversionRui Zhang, Mrinal K Sen, and Sanjay Srinivasan10 December 2012 | GEOPHYSICS, Vol. 78, No. 1A pre-stack basis pursuit seismic inversionRui Zhang, Mrinal K Sen, and Sanjay Srinivasan25 October 2012Seismic sparse-layer reflectivity inversion using basis pursuit decompositionGEOPHYSICS, Vol. 76, No. 6 SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2001ISSN (print):1052-3812 ISSN (online):1949-4645Copyright: 2001 Pages: 2135 publication data© 2001 Copyright © 2001 Society of Exploration GeophysicistsPublisher:Society of Exploration Geophysicists HistoryPublished: 03 Jan 2005 CITATION INFORMATION Jonathan Bork and Lawrence C. Wood, (2001), "Seismic interpretation of sonic logs," SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts : 510-513. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1816660 Plain-Language Summary PDF DownloadLoading ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207