Using an induction coil sensor to indirectly measure the <i>B</i> -field response in the bandwidth of the transient electromagnetic method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The traditional sensor used in transient electromagnetic (EM) systems is an induction coil. This sensor measures a voltage response proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic field in the EM bandwidth. By simply integrating the digitized output voltage from the induction coil, it is possible to obtain an indirect measurement of the magnetic field in the same bandwidth. The simple integration methodology is validated by showing that there is good agreement between synthetic voltage data integrated to a magnetic field and synthetic magnetic-field data calculated directly. Further experimental work compares induction-coil magnetic-field data collected along a profile with data measured using a SQUID magnetometer. These two electromagnetic profiles look similar, and a comparison of the decay curves at a critical point on the profile shows that the two types of measurements agree within the bounds of experimental error. Comparison of measured voltage and magnetic-field data show that the two sets of profiles have quite different characteristics. The magnetic-field data is better for identifying, discriminating, and interpreting good conductors, while suppressing the less conductive targets. An induction coil is therefore a suitable sensor for the indirect collection of EM magnetic-field data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".