A Reconnaissance AVO Analysis of the Queen Charlotte Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Located offshore western Canada, the Queen Charlotte Basin has always been known for it's strong petroleum potential. In the late sixties, eight offshore wells were drilled with one of them having an oil show. Since 1972, however, a federal moratorium has been in effect on all offshore drilling in western Canada. Multichannel seismic data collected in 1988, regional geologic studies, as well as recent economic factors have revived a strong interest into further exploration of the area. A reconnaissance AVO (amplitude vs. offset) analysis is being done to try and determine the nature of bright spots in the seismic data. Intercept vs. gradient cross-plotting techniques as well as synthetic traces computed from the well logs are used to help determine if these anomalies could possibly be hydrocarbon sources. Interpretation of the seismic data is difficult due to the extensive folding and faulting located in the northern area of the Queen Charlotte Basin. The complex geology causes diffractions which cross-cut the reflectors within common-depth points causing disruptions in the AVO patterns. Therefore, establishing of a normal AVO trend is critical to the proper assessment of AVO anomalies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".