MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient waveform tomography for lithospheric imaging: implications for realistic, two-dimensional acquisition geometries and low-frequency data

2006· article· en· W2100814877 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

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformTomographyGeologySampling (signal processing)Seismic tomographyViscoelasticityAcousticsAlgorithmGeodesySeismologyComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a series of numerical experiments designed to test waveform tomography under (i) a reduction in the number of input data frequency components (‘efficient’ waveform tomography), (ii) sparse spatial subsampling of the input data and (iii) an increase in the minimum data frequency used. These results extend the waveform tomography results of a companion paper, using the same third-party, 2-D, wide-angle, synthetic viscoelastic seismic data, computed in a crustal geology model 250 km long and 40 km deep, with heterogeneous P-velocity, S-velocity, density and Q-factor structure. Accurate velocity models were obtained using efficient waveform tomography and only four carefully selected frequency components of the input data: 0.8, 1.7, 3.6 and 7.0 Hz. This strategy avoids the spectral redundancy present in ‘full’ waveform tomography, and yields results that are comparable with those in the companion paper for an 88 per cent decrease in total computational cost. Because we use acoustic waveform tomography, the results further justify the use of the acoustic wave equation in calculating P-wave velocity models from viscoelastic data. The effect of using sparse survey geometries with efficient waveform tomography were investigated for both increased receiver spacing, and increased source spacing. Sampling theory formally requires spatial sampling at maximum interval of one half-wavelength (2.5 km at 0.8 Hz): For data with receivers every 0.9 km (conforming to this criterion), artefacts in the tomographic images were still minimal when the source spacing was as large as 7.6 km (three times the theoretical maximum). Larger source spacings led to an unacceptable degradation of the results. When increasing the starting frequency, image quality was progressively degraded. Acceptable image quality within the central portion of the model was nevertheless achieved using starting frequencies up to 3.0 Hz. At 3.0 Hz the maximum theoretical sample interval is reduced to 0.67 km due to the decreased wavelengths; the available sources were spaced every 5.0 km (more than seven times the theoretical maximum), and receivers were spaced every 0.9 km (1.3 times the theoretical maximum). Higher starting frequencies than 3.0 Hz again led to unacceptable degradation of the results.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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