MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromagnetic coupling in frequency-domain induced polarization data: a method for removal

2001· article· en· W2109093599 on OpenAlex
Partha S. Routh, Douglas W. Oldenburg

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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced polarizationAmplitudePhysicsElectric fieldFrequency domainElectromagnetic fieldPolarization (electrochemistry)Coupling (piping)Computational physicsDipoleScalar (mathematics)AcousticsOpticsMathematical analysisMaterials scienceElectrical resistivity and conductivityMathematicsChemistryQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic (EM) coupling is generally considered to be noise in induced polarization (IP) data and interpretation is difficult when its contribution is large compared to the IP signal. The effect is exacerbated by conductive environments and large‐array survey geometries designed to explore deeper targets. In this paper we present a methodology to remove EM coupling from frequency‐domain IP data. We first investigate the effect of EM coupling on the IP data and derive the necessary equations to represent the IP effect for both amplitude and phase responses of the signal. The separation of the inductive response from the total response in the low‐frequency regime is derived using the electric field due to a horizontal electric dipole and it is assumed that at low frequencies the interaction of EM effects and IP effects is negligible. The total electric field is then expressed as a product of a scalar function, which is due to IP effects, and an electric field, which depends on the EM coupling response. It is this representation that enables us to obtain the IP response from EM‐coupling‐contaminated data. To compute the EM coupling response we recognize that conductivity information is necessary. We illustrate this with a synthetic example. The removal method developed in this work for the phase and the per cent frequency effect (PFE) data are applicable to 1‐D, 2‐D and 3‐D structures. The practical utility of the method is illustrated on a 2‐D field example that is typical of mineral exploration problems.

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)0.001
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 score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.278 · 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