MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-dimensional inversion of ZTEM data

2010· article· en· W2169096904 on OpenAlexaff
Elliot Holtham, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)MagnetotelluricsGeologySynthetic dataData setRemote sensingTransfer functionAlgorithmGround truthGeodesyGeophysicsComputer scienceMathematicsSeismologyPhysicsElectrical resistivity and conductivityStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Z-Axis Tipper Electromagnetic Technique (ZTEM) data are airborne electromagnetic data which record the vertical magnetic field that results from natural sources. The data are transfer functions that relate the local vertical field to orthogonal horizontal fields measured at a reference station on the ground. The transfer functions depend on frequency and provide information about the 3-D conductivity structure of the Earth. The practical frequency range is 30–720 Hz and hence it is possible to see structures at depths of a kilometre or more if the earth is of moderate conductivity. This depth of penetration is significantly greater than that obtained with controlled source EM techniques and, when coupled with rapid spatial acquisition with an airborne system, means that ZTEM data can be used to map large-scale structures that are difficult to survey with ground based surveys. We present some fundamentals about understanding the signatures obtained with ZTEM transfer functions and then develop a Gauss–Newton algorithm to invert ZTEM data. The algorithm is applied to synthetic examples and to a field data set from the Bingham Canyon region in Utah. The field data set requires a workflow procedure to estimate appropriate noise levels in individual frequency components. These noise levels can then be used to invert multiple frequencies simultaneously. ZTEM data are insensitive to a 1-D conductivity structures and hence the background can be difficult to estimate. We provide two methods to determine appropriate background models. Interestingly, topography, which is usually a hinderance in field data interpretation, provides a first-order signal in the ZTEM data and helps with this calibration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207