MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108993726 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0372.1

Fast approximate 2D inversion of airborne TEM data: Born approximation and empirical approach

2012· article· en· W2108993726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julien Guillemoteau, P. Sailhac, M. Béhaegel

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Inverse problemHomogeneousAlgorithmComputer scienceInverseSynthetic dataElectrical conductorSensitivity (control systems)GeologyMathematical optimizationMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisPhysicsElectronic engineeringStatistical physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Airborne transient electromagnetic surveying provides data sections with a sufficient coverage to perform 2D imaging of electrical conductivity within the ground. Full 2D inversion using numerical modeling with finite differences or finite elements is still a time-consuming method to process the large amount of data acquired during an airborne survey. Two-dimensional structures increase the complexity of eddy current patterns within the ground. Consequently, fast approximate imaging using 2D sensitivities of equivalent homogeneous media is not sufficient, and causes strong artifacts in the resulting model. To overcome this problem, one prefers to use 1D inversion or 3D inversion using local sensitivity to process this kind of data. However, we consider a fast 2D inversion to be reachable. By estimating numerically the 2D sensitivity caused by 2D perturbations and showing that it differs considerably from the ones derived from homogeneous media, we propose an empirical model for in-loop configuration which describes the numerical 2D sensitivity. We applied this method to synthetic data; it eliminated 2D artifacts which are often encountered when using approximate inverse methods based on the theory of equivalent homogeneous half-space. An application to real in-loop data illustrates this improvement for imaging a dipping layer of conductive graphite deposits in Canada. This method is relatively fast. It could provide a better understanding of the ground during the survey, and would allow geophysicists to better manage the whole campaign.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207