MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322827327 · doi:10.1190/segam2015-5816603.1

Modeling radio imaging (RIM) data with the Comsol RF module

2015· article· en· W2322827327 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongxing Li, Richard S. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadio frequencyComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The radio imaging method (RIM) employs the propagation of radio-frequency EM waves (100 kHz to 10 MHz) to image the conductivity distribution between the boreholes. We studied the wave propagation using the finite-element-modeling (FEM) algorithm implemented in the Comsol RF module. Appropriate element sizes are quantified by comparing the Comsol modeling results of 6 types of element sizes at 4 frequencies with analytical solutions for the homogeneous whole-space model. The comparison reveals that modeled data with 5 elements per wavelength have errors less than 5%; 7 to 8 elements per wavelength provide errors around 1%; and when there are 10 elements per wavelength, the errors are less than 1%. We also compared the solutions for spherical models, which shows the Comsol solutions are consistent with the analytical solutions and the solutions from a finite-difference time-domain algorithm. To illustrate the flexibility of Comsol package, we provide an example with two moderately conductive bodies between boreholes. The EM wave attenuation and reflection by the conductive bodies can be observed on the relative variation map. We used the synthetic data to reconstruct a tomographic image with the SIRT algorithm. The image shows that the location of the conductive anomalies are reconstructed fairly successfully, although, there are some artifacts. From our work, we conclude that Comsol modeling is helpful to study the radio wave propagation and tomographic imaging methods.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207