MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121470767 · doi:10.1190/1.3103249

A 3D total magnetization inversion applicable when significant, complicated remanence is present

2009· article· en· W2121470767 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Lelièvre, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemanenceMagnetizationStoner–Wohlfarth modelCartesian coordinate systemAnisotropyGeologyGeophysicsPhysicsMathematicsMagnetic fieldGeometryOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inversion of magnetic data is complicated by the presence of remanent magnetization. To deal with this problem, we invert magnetic data for a three-component subsurface magnetization vector, as opposed to magnetic susceptibility (a scalar). The magnetization vector can be cast in a Cartesian or spherical framework. In the Cartesian formulation, the total magnetization is split into one component parallel and two components perpendicular to the earth's field. In the spherical formulation, we invert for magnetization amplitude and the dip and azimuth of the magnetization direction. Our inversion schemes contain flexibility to obtain different types of magnetization models and allow for inclusion of geologic information regarding remanence. Allowing a vector magnetization increases the nonuniqueness of the magnetic inverse problem greatly, but additional information (e.g., knowledge of physical properties or geology) incorporated as constraints can improve the results dramatically. Commonly available information results in complicated nonlinear constraints in the Cartesian formulation. However, moving to a spherical formulation results in simple bound constraints at the expense of a now nonlinear objective function. We test our methods using synthetic and real data from scenarios involving complicated remanence (i.e., many magnetized bodies with many magnetization directions). All tests provide favorable results and our methods compare well against those of other authors.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations166
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207