MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137231649 · doi:10.1190/1.3141002

Assisted traveltime picking of crosshole GPR data

2009· article· en· W2137231649 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceRadarAlgorithmWaveformWaveletAkaike information criterionGround-penetrating radarNoise (video)Artificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · 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