MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193275796 · doi:10.1190/geo2014-0546.1

Multitrace impedance inversion with lateral constraints

2015· article· en· W2193275796 on OpenAlexaff
Haitham Hamid, Adam Pidlisecky

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)A priori and a posterioriElectrical impedanceGeologyFidelityAlgorithmSynthetic dataInverse problemComputer scienceSeismologyMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed a lateral constraint to the inversion of 1D seismic impedance models to suppress the effect of data noise and improve the fidelity of formation boundaries in 2D models for situations with dips of less than 20°. Typical inversion frameworks rely on a 1D forward model with each 1D trace being inverted independently. Adjacent inversion models are combined together to form a 2D impedance model. Adding a lateral constraint improves the fidelity of the 2D impedance models while retaining much of the advantage of the low-computational cost associated with typical 1D inversion schemes. Solving the 1D lateral constraint inversion (1D-LCI) problem involves the simultaneous inversion of multiple 1D traces producing layered sections with lateral smoothed transition. In addition to enforcing lateral continuity in the inversion model, this algorithm allows for the inclusion of a priori knowledge from boreholes. We determined the effectiveness of this algorithm on two synthetic models, as well as a field seismic data set. One-dimensional-LCI inversion results produced well-defined horizontal boundaries, while suppressing noise.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations136
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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