MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171811263 · doi:10.1186/bf03351587

2D inversion of 3D magnetotelluric data: The Kayabe dataset

2014· article· en· W2171811263 on OpenAlexaff
Xavier García, Juanjo Ledo, Pilar Queralt

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Planets and Space · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsInversion (geology)3d modelSkewInterpretation (philosophy)GridAlgorithmComputer scienceGeologyData miningGeophysicsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Electrical resistivity and conductivitySeismologyGeodesyTectonicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last two Magnetotelluric Data Interpretation Workshops (MT-DIW) the participants were asked to model the Kayabe magnetotelluric dataset, a dense (100 m) grid of thirteen lines, with thirteen stations in each line. Bahr’s phase-sensitive skew and the Groom and Bailey decomposition were used to select those lines for which the data could be considered two-dimensional. For these lines we used a 2D inversion algorithm to obtain a series of resistivity models for the earth. Finally, we constructed a 3D model using the 2D models and critically examined the validity and practicality of this approach based on 3D model study. We found that in the Kayabe dataset case the common practice of using 2D models to depict 3D models, can only be used to create a starting model for 3D interpretation. The sequential 2D models as a representation of a 3D body is unacceptable in terms of fit to the observed data. We question the validity of some of the conductivity structures in the 2D models, as they can be mere artifacts created by the algorithm to match 3D effects.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Planets and SpaceSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207