MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159339585 · doi:10.1071/aseg2013ab217

Recovery of 3D IP distribution from airborne time-domain EM

2013· article· en· W2159339585 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)GeologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractConventional IP is not the only technique that is sensitive to chargeable material. Any electromagnetic method applied in the presence of chargeable material will be affected. Unfortunately, the effects are often hard to recognize in the data. For the particular case of coincident loop time-domain EM data, negative transients - soundings with a reversal in sign of the received fields - are diagnostic of chargeable materials. This property can also be extended to center loop systems, including many airborne systems. Negative transients are commonly observed in airborne TEM systems, such as Fugro’s AeroTEM system or Geotech’s VTEM system.We develop an inversion methodology to attempt to recover a three dimensional distribution of chargeability from observations of negative transients in airborne time- domain electromagnetic data. Forward modeling of chargeable targets is performed directly in the time domain, and the sensitivity of these data to the presence of chargeable material is derived. The methodology is applied to a synthetic data set. Areas of future work and potential problems are discussed.KeywordsInduced PolarizationAirborne Time- Domain ElectromagneticsInversion

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.195 · 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