MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146387312 · doi:10.1109/igarss.1996.516370

DATE-dip algorithm testing and evaluating workbench

2002· article· en· W2146387312 on OpenAlexaff
Mark G. Kerzner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkbenchComputationAlgorithmComputer scienceTilt (camera)Development (topology)Relation (database)Data miningEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsVisualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dipmeter is a well logging tool for measuring formation dip, that is, the angle and the direction of the tilt of the underground formation. It does this by measuring focused microresistivity in a few places on the circumference of the hole. If the formation is dipping the resulting measurements will be displaced in relation to each other. From these displacements one can compute the dip by applying standard formulas of analytical geometry. However, finding these displacements is far from a standard problem. The need for effective reservoir description poses ever great challenges and necessitates the development of better, more stable and precise dip computation algorithms. This paper describes a development environment which was designed and programmed specifically to develop and test dip computation algorithms. The author describes the geological considerations that went into the design and their implementation. The author also briefly discusses the results achieved using this environment, namely, new dip computation algorithms. The immediate benefit of the DATE workbench is therefore the development of new dip computation algorithms. In addition, it can serve either as a base or as a model for developing processing algorithms for other tools.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207