The role of geological uncertainty in developing combined geological and potential field inversions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".