MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316702884 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201412706

Least Squares Wave Equation Migration of Elastic Data

2015· article· en· W2316702884 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationSeismic migrationHelmholtz equationFourier transformWave equationLeast-squares function approximationFrequency domainMathematical analysisSynthetic dataAlgorithmIsotropyOperator (biology)MathematicsComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsBoundary value problemStatisticsGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Least squares migration compensates for the effects of missing data, noise, and illumination by imposing various constraints on an image while ensuring the model fits the observed data. Multicomponent seismic data are well suited for least squares migration as they generally suffer from many of the same complications as single component data. This article extends least squares wave equation migration to two component elastic data in isotropic media. Forward and adjoint operators are written using Helmholtz recomposition/decomposition operators implemented in the Fourier domain, while extrapolation is carried out using a split-step operator. Poynting vectors calculated using source and receiver side P-wave potentials are used to calculate angle gathers. We regularize the inversion by dip filtering in the angle domain to reduce the effect of source/receiver sampling, noise, and PP/PS crosstalk artifacts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.138 · 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