MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164468380 · doi:10.1190/tle32020178.1

Structural curvature versus amplitude curvature

2013· article· en· W2164468380 on OpenAlexaff
Satinder Chopra, Kurt J. Marfurt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureAmplitudeComputationAzimuthReflection (computer programming)GeometryGeologyMathematicsOpticsAlgorithmPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because they are second-order derivatives, seismic curvature attributes can enhance subtle information that may be difficult to see using first-order derivatives such as the dip magnitude and the dip-azimuth attributes. As a result, these attributes form an integral part of most seismic interpretation projects. This conventional computation of curvature may be termed as structural curvature, as lateral second-order derivatives of the structural component of seismic time or depth of reflection events are used to generate them. In this study, we explore the case of applying lateral second-order derivatives on the amplitudes of seismic data along the reflectors. We refer to such computation as amplitude curvature. For volumetric structural curvature we compute first derivatives in the inline and crossline components of structural dip. For amplitude curvature, we apply a similar computation to the inline and crossline components of the energy-weighted amplitude gradients, which represent the directional measures of amplitude variability. Because of limits to lateral resolution, application of amplitude curvature computation to real seismic data results in greater lateral resolution than structural curvature. The images are mathematically independent of each other and thus highlight different features in the subsurface, but are often correlated through the underlying geology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207