Assisted traveltime picking of crosshole GPR data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduce two new traveltime picking schemes developed specifically for crosshole ground-penetrating radar (GPR) applications. The main objective is to automate, at least partially, the traveltime picking procedure and to provide first-arrival times that are closer in quality to those of manual picking approaches. The first scheme is an adaptation of a method based on cross-correlation of radar traces collated in gathers according to their associated transmitter-receiver angle. A detector is added to isolate the first cycle of the radar wave and to suppress secon-dary arrivals that might be mistaken for first arrivals. To improve the accuracy of the arrival times obtained from the crosscorrelation lags, a time-rescaling scheme is implemented to resize the radar wavelets to a common time-window length. The second method is based on the Akaike information criterion(AIC) and continuous wavelet transform (CWT). It is not tied to the restrictive criterion of waveform similarity that underlies crosscorrelation approaches, which is not guaranteed for traces sorted in common ray-angle gathers. It has the advantage of being automated fully. Performances of the new algorithms are tested with synthetic and real data. In all tests, the approach that adds first-cycle isolation to the original crosscorrelation scheme improves the results. In contrast, the time-rescaling approach brings limited benefits, except when strong dispersion is present in the data. In addition, the performance of crosscorrelation picking schemes degrades for data sets with disparate waveforms despite the high signal-to-noise ratio of the data. In general, the AIC-CWT approach is more versatile and performs well on all data sets. Only with data showing low signal-to-noise ratios is the AIC-CWT superseded by the modified crosscorrelation picker.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".