MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137681109 · doi:10.1071/aseg2013ab152

Mass anomaly visualisation and depth estimation from full tensor gradient gravity data

2013· article· en· W2137681109 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Wedge, Yathunanthan Sivarajah, Eun‐Jung Holden, Peter Kovesi, Chris Wijns, Paul Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsFirst Quantum Minerals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelGeologyGravitational fieldNoise (video)CurvatureTensor (intrinsic definition)VisualizationGravity anomalyGeodesyArtificial intelligenceGeometryMathematicsPhysicsImage (mathematics)Computer sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Full Tensor Gradient (FTG) gravity data measures the derivatives of the Earth’s gravitational field. Such variations in the gravitational field may be due to the presence of bodies of higher or lower density relative to the surrounding rock.As the gravity tensor contains 5 independent components, effective visualisation of this high-dimensional dataset is advantageous for efficient processing of the FTG data. We present two aspects of visualising mass anomalies in FTG gravity datasets. First, we create a textured image where the orientations of the resulting texture reflect local lateral orientations encoded in the FTG data. It uses a colour map to highlight geologically significant structures such as linear features and radially symmetric points by identifying different geological features and using colour components to represent different feature types. This visualisation method is shown to be robust to significant levels of modelled noise, and we demonstrate its applicability to a field FTG survey.Second, we present an algorithm for estimating the depths of mass anomalies in FTG data. A voxel representation of the subsurface is created and voxels are voted for according to gravitational curvature properties encoded in the FTG tensor. A visualisation of the volume at successive depths highlights 3D locations of mass anomalies at local maxima of the volume. The algorithm is evaluated on a forward-modelled FTG dataset where the depths of mass anomalies are known. The depths of mass anomalies are shown to be accurately located in the presence of noise.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207