MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327886955 · doi:10.1190/1.3627849

A hexagonal finite difference mesh for 2D TTI RTM

2011· article· en· W2327886955 on OpenAlexaff
Cen Ong, Damir Pasalic, Ray McGarry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsAcceleware (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexagonal crystal systemComputer scienceMaterials scienceFinite difference methodMathematicsCrystallographyMathematical analysisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common finite difference implementation of reverse time migration with tilted transverse isotropy (TTI) follows the formulation of Alkhalifah (2000), Fletcher et. al. (2008) and Zhou et. al. (2006). The finite difference implementation of these equations in Cartesian coordinates necessitates the computation of mixed partial derivatives of the acoustic pressure in the spatial domain. Different methods exist for the computation of these mixed derivatives including sequentially computing centered first derivatives in each direction, computing staggered first derivatives with interpolation or the pseudospectral method. The computation of centered first derivatives causes ringing in the output but using staggered derivatives requires interpolation of the staggered points back to the original grid. The pseudospectral method necessitates the computation of a 2D FFT in a 2D simulation. In this paper, we propose a hexagonal mesh for the finite difference implementation of 2D TTI RTM. The implementation eliminates the need for mixed partial derivatives and reduces grid dispersion in wave simulations.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207