Magnetotelluric static shift: Estimation and removal using the cokriging method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present and test a new method to correct for the static shift affecting magnetotelluric (MT) apparent resistivity sounding curves. We use geostatistical analysis of apparent resistivity and phase data for selected periods. For each period, we first estimate and model the experimental variograms and cross variogram between phase and apparent resistivity. We then use the geostatistical model to estimate, by cokriging, the corrected apparent resistivities using the measured phases and apparent resistivities. The static shift factor is obtained as the difference between the logarithm of the corrected and measured apparent resistivities. We retain as final static shift estimates the ones for the period displaying the best correlation with the estimates at all periods. We present a 3D synthetic case study showing that the static shift is retrieved quite precisely when the static shift factors are uniformly distributed around zero. If the static shift distribution has a nonzero mean, we obtained best results when an apparent resistivity data subset can be identified a priori as unaffected by static shift and cokriging is done using only this subset. The method has been successfully tested on the synthetic COPROD-2S2 2D MT data set and on a 3D-survey data set from Las Cañadas Caldera (Tenerife, Canary Islands) severely affected by static shift.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".