MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2329111989 · doi:10.1190/1.3513813

Sigma processing of pre‐stack data for optimizing AVO analysis: A case study on the Forties field

2010· article· en· W2329111989 on OpenAlexaff
Florent Piriac, Arben Shtuka, Romain Gil, Luc Sandjivy, Klaas Koster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStack (abstract data type)WorkflowComputer scienceData processingOffset (computer science)Data qualityNoise (video)DatabaseEngineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sigma processing of seismic data has already proven its capability to remove noise and separate waves on pre and post stack seismic data (Piriac & al 2010, Gronwald & al 2009). In order to further validate this new technology for assessing the quality and performance of a seismic data processing step, we show in the following the first results of a case study currently underway on the AVO processing of pre-stack data on the Forties field (UK). The preconditioning of pre stack gathers (AVO noise reduction) requires a particular attention so that the amplitude versus offset relationship is not impacted before the AVO analysis (AVO consistency). This is verified with the sigma processing workflow that is presented below and this opens the way to the quality assessment and optimization of the derivation of the AVO attributes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→