MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126486604 · doi:10.1190/1.3555082

Linearized AVO and poroelasticity

2011· article· en· W2126486604 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Russell, David R. Gray, Daniel P. Hampson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitude versus offsetPoromechanicsWeightingPrestackAmplitudeGeologyMathematicsGeotechnical engineeringSeismologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The technique of amplitude variation with offset (AVO) allows geoscientists to extract fluid and lithology information from the analysis of prestack seismic amplitudes. Various AVO parameterizations exist, all of which involve the sum of three weighted elastic-constant terms. In present-day AVO approaches, the weighting terms involve either knowledge of the incidence angle only, or knowledge of both the incidence angle and the in situ VP/VS ratio. We have used the theory of poroelasticity to derive a generalized AVO approximation that provides the estimation of fluid, rigidity, and density parameters. We have combined two previously independent AVO formulations, thus reducing, instead of adding to, the total number of formulations. This new approach requires knowledge of a third parameter to compute the weights: the dry-rock VP/VS ratio. We have derived a new equation and applied it to model and real data sets. The new formulation has allowed us to estimate fluid properties of the reservoir in a more direct manner than previous formulations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.159 · 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
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

Citations262
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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