MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Update On Recent Observations In Multi-Component Seismic Reflection Profiling

2010· article· en· W2328123847 on OpenAlexaffabout
A J -M Pugin, S E Pullan, James A. Hunter

Bibliographic record

Venue23rd EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyShear (geology)SeismologyShear wavesReflection (computer programming)Polarization (electrochemistry)Shear wave splittingVertical seismic profileSurface waveAcousticsGeophysicsOpticsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examples of multi-component shallow seismic reflection profiling from different environments in eastern Canada are presented to examine the benefits of shear wave reflection data and the latest developments in acquisition methodology, as well as our evolving understanding of the complex nature of seismic wave propagation. Examination of the wave motion through multi-component recording shows that, regardless of the source orientation, shear wave reflections may be polarized in varying directions. In “soft” soils characterized by low shear wave velocities, extremely high-resolution shear wave reflection sections can be obtained, with the highest-resolution data related to in-line or vertical components of motion. Data recorded in the transverse (SH) direction are generally somewhat lower in frequency but may be better able to penetrate into more compact (higher velocity) sediments. Multicomponent recording provides the capacity to record all data, without having to know the main shear wave polarization direction prior to data acquisition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue23rd EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental ProblemsSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207