MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259686793 · doi:10.1190/geo2015-0216.1

Compressive sensing imaging of microseismic events constrained by the sign-bit

2016· article· en· W2259686793 on OpenAlexaff
Ismael Vera Rodriguez, Nasser Kazemi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismSign (mathematics)Computer scienceCompressed sensingAmplitudeConstraint (computer-aided design)Operator (biology)AlgorithmReflection (computer programming)Noise (video)Synthetic dataImage (mathematics)GeologySeismologyArtificial intelligenceOpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed a source location algorithm based on compressive sensing (CS) imaging constrained with the sign-bit of the observations. The relationship between sparsity and compression level was exemplified by contrasting synthetic examples of compressed imaging in reflection seismology and microseismic monitoring scenarios. The influence of noise was also illustrated in the microseismic monitoring case. The synthetic and real data examples were used to demonstrate the advantages that the sign-bit constraint provided over a previously proposed CS approach using the adjoint operator. The improvement in the imaging results obtained with and without the sign-bit constraint was quantified by estimating the ratio of the image amplitude at the source position with respect to the background. Images obtained with the sign-bit constraint present larger ratios and more condensed amplitude anomalies, which translate into more confident event detections and smaller location uncertainties.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207