MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122996575 · doi:10.1190/geo2012-0451.1

Spatial sampling, migration aliasing, and migrated amplitudes

2013· article· en· W2122996575 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel H. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsVirtual Materials Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAliasingGridSeismic migrationContext (archaeology)Sampling (signal processing)ExtrapolationAmplitudeComputer scienceGeologySeismologyGeodesyMathematicsPhysicsOpticsComputer visionMathematical analysisFilter (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Seismic migration is a multichannel process, in which some of the properties depend on various grid spacings. First, there is the acquisition grid, which actually consists of two grids: a grid of source locations and, for each source location, a grid of receiver locations. In addition, there is a third grid, the migration grid, whose spacings also affect properties of the migration. Sampling theory imposes restrictions on migration, limiting the frequency content that can be migrated reliably given the grid spacings. The presence of three grids complicates the application of sampling theory except in unusual situations (e.g., the isolated migration of a single shot record). I analyzed the effects of the grids on different types of migration (Kirchhoff, wavefield extrapolation migration, and slant-stack migration), specifically in the context of migration operator antialiasing. I evaluated general antialiasing criteria for the different types of migration; my examples placed particular emphasis on one style of data acquisition, orthogonal source and receiver lines, which is commonly used on land and which presents particular challenges for the analysis. It is known that migration artifacts caused by inadequate antialiasing can interfere with velocity and amplitude analyses. I found, in addition, that even migrations with adequate antialiasing protection can have the side effect of inaccurate amplitudes resulting from a given acquisition, and I tested how this effect can be compensated.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207