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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

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