Research Note: The mean sensitivity depth of the electrical resistivity method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Until now, a simple formula to estimate the depth of investigation of the electrical resistivity method that takes into account the positions of all of the electrodes for a general four‐electrode array has not been available. While the depth sensitivity function of the method for a homogeneous infinite half‐space is well known, previous attempts to use it to characterize the depth of investigation have involved calculating its peak and median, both of which must be determined numerically for a general four‐electrode array. I will show that the mean of the sensitivity function, which has not been considered previously, does admit a very simple mathematical formula. I compare the mean depth with the median and peak sensitivity depths for some common arrays. The mean is always greater than or equal to the median that is always greater than the peak. All three measures give reasonable estimates to the depths of actual structures for most circumstances. I will further show that, for 1D soundings, the use of the mean sensitivity depth as the pseudo‐depth assigns an apparent resistivity to a given pseudo‐depth that is consistent between different arrays. One consequence of this is that smoother depth soundings are obtained as “clutches,” caused by a change in the depth sensitivity due to moving the potential electrodes, are effectively removed. I expect that the mean depth formula will be a useful “rule of thumb” for estimating the depth of investigation before the resistivity structure of the ground is known.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".