MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158875563 · doi:10.1190/1.3587216

Effects of low-pass filtering on the calculated structural index from magnetic data

2011· article· en· W2158875563 on OpenAlexaff
Kristofer Davis, Yaoguo Li, Misac N. Nabighian

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEnvironmental Security Technology Certification Program
KeywordsDeconvolutionEuler's formulaFilter (signal processing)CutoffLow-pass filterCutoff frequencyMagnetic fieldMagnetic dipoleAlgorithmComputational physicsMathematical analysisPhysicsMathematicsComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Euler and extended Euler deconvolution applications use an assumed structural index (SI) or calculate the SI, respectively, for magnetic anomaly data within a specified window. The structural index depends on the source type: specifically, the rate at which the field produced by the source decays. We have examined the effects that the application of low-pass filtering to magnetic data has on estimating the SI. Using a simple low-pass filter, we derived the SI for filtered-field solutions directly over, and away from, a target based on the magnetic potential of a vertical dipole (SI = 2). We validated this approach by applying extended Euler deconvolution to synthetic and field examples. In general, filtered magnetic data will decrease the numerically determined SI to a value lower than the theoretical one. The slope and cutoff wavelength of the filter directly affect the estimated SI solutions. The results prove that one must take into account filtering for the application of Euler deconvolution to locate dipole anomalies for unexploded ordnance detection.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207