Optimum MASW Survey—Revisit after a Decade of Use
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an attempt to study systematically on the optimum source offset— the distance between source and the closest receiver— and total receiver spread length with the MASW method, we present our observations with modeling and field data sets indicating that the most accurate analysis of phase velocities can be accomplished only for wavelengths up to one spread length, and subsequent analysis for the longer wavelengths inevitably involves a certain degee of fluctuating inaccuracy that seems to originate from the Gibbs—phenomenon of Fourier transformation. The inaccuracy, however, seems to be within five percentfor those wavelengths shorter than twice the spread length. Also, results from the field data study suggest that importance of the source offset has been previously underestimated and the maximum wavelength can be extended simply by extending the source offset. In addition, they showedthat phase velocities tend to be underestimated if the source offset is smaller than one spread length. The degree of underestimation, however, appears highly site dependent and sometimes becomes negligible even if the source offsetis as short as only one receiver spacing.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 it