Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| January 01, 2009 Thirty Years of Confusion around “Scattering Q”? Igor B. Morozov Igor B. Morozov Department of Geological Sciences University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2 Canada igor.morozov@usask.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Igor B. Morozov Department of Geological Sciences University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2 Canada igor.morozov@usask.ca Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1938-2057 Print ISSN: 0895-0695 © 2009 by the Seismological Society of America Seismological Research Letters (2009) 80 (1): 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.1.5 Article history First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Igor B. Morozov; Thirty Years of Confusion around “Scattering Q”?. Seismological Research Letters 2009;; 80 (1): 5–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.1.5 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySeismological Research Letters Search Advanced Search The past 30 years have seen vast advances in seismic instrumentation, computing infrastructure, and methodology. In particular, an impressive concept of the frequency-dependent attenuation quality, Q(f), was created, followed by a dazzling array of related theories and models. However, revisiting some of its original postulates still shows that theoretical models may have run somewhat ahead of the observational constraints. Many presentations of Q(f) have been influenced by the prevalence of particular models, especially those based on random scattering. This led to the well-known apparent character of Q(f) and excessive complexity of... You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".