MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325884682 · doi:10.1071/aseg2004ab016

3-D joint inversion of electrical and magnetometric resistivity data

2004· article· en· W2325884682 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiuping Chen, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectrical resistivity and conductivityInversion (geology)GeologyJoint (building)GeophysicsElectrical resistivity tomographySeismologyElectrical engineeringEngineeringTectonicsCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DC electrical resistivity (DC) and magnetometric resistivity (MMR) are two geophysical techniques applied in exploration of mineral resources and in solving environmental and problems.Conventionally, these two techniques are used separately to infer the subsurface conductivity. Since each of these methods has its own relative merits and limitations, a joint use is expected to provide complementary information, and possibly reduce the survey costs as well. In this paper, we present a unified algorithm to compute the potential and magnetic fields that arise from buried source electrodes. This is done in two consecutive steps by solving a Poisson’s equation for a scalar electrical potential and a magnetostatic equation for a vector magnetic potential, respectively. The inverse problem is formulated as an optimization in which both observed potential and magnetic field data are fit to a certain degree, and at the same time, the recovered model has a minimum structure. The standard Gauss-Newton algorithm is used to obtain the model pertubation at each iteration. The code is verified with a synthetic model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207