MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178558917 · doi:10.1190/int-2015-0002.1

SV-P extraction and imaging for far-offset vertical seismic profile data

2015· article· en· W2178558917 on OpenAlexaff
Yandong Li, Bob A. Hardage

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersTsinghua University
KeywordsGeologyOffset (computer science)GeophoneVertical seismic profileSeismologyGeodesyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have analyzed vertical seismic profile (VSP) data acquired across a Marcellus Shale prospect and found that SV-P reflections could be extracted from far-offset VSP data generated by a vertical-vibrator source using time-variant receiver rotations. Optimal receiver rotation angles were determined by a dynamic steering of geophones to the time-varying approach directions of upgoing SV-P reflections. These SV-P reflections were then imaged using a VSP common-depth-point transformation based on ray tracing. Comparisons of our SV-P image with P-P and P-SV images derived from the same offset VSP data found that for deep targets, SV-P data created an image that extended farther from the receiver well than P-P and P-SV images and that spanned a wider offset range than P-P and P-SV images do. A comparison of our VSP SV-P image with a surface-based P-SV profile that traversed the VSP well demonstrated that SV-P data were equivalent to P-SV data for characterizing geology and that a VSP-derived SV-P image could be used to calibrate surface-recorded SV-P data that were generated by P-wave sources.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207