MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329656853 · doi:10.1190/segam2012-0859.1

A low-frequency seismic field experiment

2012· article· en· W2329656853 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysics and Sensor Technology
Canadian institutionsHusky Energy (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneSeismic vibratorDynamiteLow frequencyAcousticsNoise (video)Seismic noiseGeologyDwell timeSIGNAL (programming language)SeismologyPhysicsEngineeringComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a seismic field experiment and subsequent data analysis designed to test the performance of common sources and receivers at low frequencies. Both dynamite and vibroseis sources were tested. Receivers tested included Vectorseis (MEMs) and both 4.5 Hz and 10 Hz geophones. Dynamite produced the strongest low-frequency signal but vibroseis was able to operate effectively down to around 2 Hz using low-dwell sweeps. Both geophones recovered low frequency signal down to 1- 2 Hz after correction for their intrinsic response. Vectorseis produced a strong response to very low frequencies but increasing noise becomes a progressive problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysics and Sensor TechnologyFrench-language works237,207