Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".