Correlating ERT with AEM in a rock slide mapping project, same shape but different quantities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate an active rock slide in Western Norway with ground- and airborne resistivity mapping to ultimately find weakness zones & sliding planes embedded in crystalline bedrock. The study area comprises phyllite, a low grade metamorphic rock type that tends to be reworked to clay in disturbed zones. Mapping these electrically conductive clay zones was the aim of the survey. GPS measurements over the last 5 years indicate that precipitation drives rock slide movements. The role of ground water is thus a crucial factor to investigate for risk assessment in the area.Based on a successful airborne electromagnetic (AEM) demonstration survey, we conducted a total of 1.600 profile meters of ground resistivity (ERT) measurements to confirm AEM anomalies, to gain precise 2D geometries and to link conductivity anomalies with geology.All resistivity results confirm AEM anomalies and refine their lateral extent. In the East we find consistency between a strong conductor, dipping sub horizontal SW with an outcropping thrust fault, separating phyllite and gneiss. In the West a conductor dipping steeply NNW seems to be fed by surface water and may represent a formerly unknown sliding plane. While ERT and AEM anomaly shapes generally agree within their mutual resolution limitations, the resistivity values significantly deviate. It remains unclear whether anisotropy or strong 3D artefacts cause this disagreement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".