MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186424503 · doi:10.1071/aseg2010ab169

The role of geological uncertainty in developing combined geological and potential field inversions

2010· article· en· W2186424503 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

VenueExploration Geophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverprintingField (mathematics)GeologyEstimatorData miningComputer scienceGeophysicsPaleontologyStatisticsTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, implicit model building techniques have been developed which use, for example, geo-statistical methods to interpolate boundary orientations as a scalar field. Boundaries are implicitly formulated as iso-values of that field. Using more than one potential allows modelling for intrusion and unconformities. This technique is attractive because it makes 3D geological modeling a repeatable task and model uncertainty can be estimated from the geostatistical estimators. However, this uncertainty does not take into account the error on field measurements, nor estimates of how relevant are the measurements to the modelled structures. Lastly, this uncertainty does not take into account possible variation in the knowledge based information which is very often interpretative, such as structural evolution history, fault network, and overprinting relationships with themselves and the different formations. We present an innovative method that will simulate numerous (millions of) geological models from a single initial structural dataset, taking into account these variables. These models are used to estimate geological uncertainty, highlighting future areas of research or data collection. A series of best models are then assessed against potential field inversions and modified to better fit potential field data. In the end, the models that both better fit geological input data and potential field data will be retained. A best probable model will be proposed that will satisfy geophysical data as well as geological data. To assess the models against the initial geological data input, we develop geological objective functions based on (e.g.) locations and gradients of boundaries. It is our intent to combine these objectives functions with classical geophysical objective functions to provide a new method for combined geological and potential field inversions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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