Orientation analysis of borehole geophones: calibration consistency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geophone orientation azimuths were found from 3D VSP data, acquired near Lousana, Alberta, in order to examine any dependence of computed geophone orientation on source-well offset or azimuth. Additionally, a comparison was made between analytic and hodogram methods. The dataset was divided based on source-well azimuth into bins with centers trending 0°-180°, 45°-225°, 90°-270° and 135°-315°. There appeared to be little dependence on source-well sector azimuth, which is expected for flat, isotropic geology near the well. Offsets were binned into ranges of 0-600 m, 600-950 m, 950-1300 m, 1300-1650 m and greater than 1650 m. Scatter in rotation angles was shown to be strongly dependent on offset, with the most constrained results in the 1300-1650 m offset bin. The optimal offset range for geophone orientation calibration was found to be between 1 and 2 times the receiver depth. Standard deviation in orientation azimuths were found to be 1.66° using the analytic method, and 2.17° using the hodogram method from a total of 249 source locations. While the both methods performed well, the analytic method produced more consistent results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".