MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110136282 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggu329

Frequency- and spatial-correlated noise on layered magnetotelluric inversion

2014· article· en· W2110136282 on OpenAlexaff
Rongwen Guo, Stan E. Dosso, Jianxin Liu, Zaiming Liu, Xiaozhong Tong

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsCovarianceCovariance matrixInversion (geology)GeologyDiagonalMathematicsInverse theoryStatisticsBayesian probabilityGeodesySeismologyPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correlated data errors (noise) are common in magnetotelluric (MT) data, but MT inversions typically neglect error correlations without investigating the impact of this simplification on inversion results. This paper examines effects of neglecting frequency- and spatially correlated noise on MT inversion, based on a nonlinear Bayesian formulation which quantifies the uncertainties of inversion results in terms of marginal posterior probability densities and credibility intervals. To do so, data with frequency- and spatially correlated noise of differing degrees are generated for several layered (1-D) synthetic cases. Bayesian MT inversions are carried out for these data sets with and without accounting for error correlation (i.e. applying full and diagonal covariance matrices, respectively, in the inversion), and the results are compared. For cases with noise that is strongly correlated over frequency or space, parameter uncertainties estimated using the diagonal-covariance simplification (neglecting error correlations) are found to often be significantly underestimated compared with results computed using the full covariance matrix.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207