MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130082989 · doi:10.1190/1.2400625

Magnetotelluric static shift: Estimation and removal using the cokriging method

2006· article· en· W2130082989 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoît Tournerie, Michel Chouteau, Denis Marcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGeoscience BC
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVariogramMagnetotelluricsLogarithmGeologyElectrical resistivity and conductivityData setGeodesyStatisticsMathematicsKrigingMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207