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 OpenAlexaff
Andrew Brenders, R. G. Pratt

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.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations129
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207