MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332593000 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413870

3D Multiple Body Parametric Inversion of Time-domain Airborne EM Data

2015· article· pt· W2332593000 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. McMillan, Douglas W. Oldenburg, Eldad Haber, Christoph Schwarzbach, Elliot Holtham

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical conductorInversion (geology)Parametric statisticsResistive touchscreenSynthetic dataGeologyConductorGeophysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryMathematicsPhysicsComputer visionSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We developed a 3D parametric inversion for time-domain airborne EM data using a skewed ellipsoid representation for multiple conductive or resistive anomalies. The approach aims to simplify the task of imaging thin, potentially highly conductive, anomalies with 3D EM inversion. The algorithm finds the optimal location, shape, size and resistivity of the anomalies in a homogeneous or heterogeneous background by employing a Gauss-Newton style optimization. Our parametric method is tested on a synthetic and field data set. The synthetic model is composed of two narrow dipping conductive anomalies in a resistive background along with a vertical narrow conductor. The survey layout and resistivity structure is based off field data from a greenstone setting. The parametric inversion accurately recovers the spatial extent and dips of the three synthetic anomalies, although the depth extent of the anomalies is exaggerated. In the greenstone field example, the inversion defines the spatial location, extent and dips of three conductive anomalies to provide a new conductivity interpretation of an area where little information is known regarding the true nature of the conductors.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207