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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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