MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334509826 · doi:10.1071/aseg2009ab050

Examples showing characteristics of the megatem airborne electromagnetic system

2009· article· en· W2334509826 on OpenAlex
R. Smith, Jean‐Michel Lemieux

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmitterAttenuationRadar systemsMoment (physics)Electric power systemMagnetometerElectrical engineeringAcousticsMeteorologyGeologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsRadarPower (physics)EngineeringOpticsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fixed-wing MEGATEM airborne transient electromagnetic (EM) system was introduced in 1998 (Smith et al., 2003) as a four-engine version of the GEOTEM system (Annan and Lockwood, 1991). The four engines were required so that the system could fly safely at high altitudes in the Andes Mountains (Smith et al., 2003). The larger aircraft required to carry four engines was also able to carry a larger transmitter loop, so the dipole moment of the system increased to more than one million Am2 ? hence the name MEGATEM. However, the aircraft was also able to draw power from more generators and carry heavier more powerful transmitter electronics, so a further increase was achieved in 2001 so that the dipole moment became more than two million Am2 (Smith et al., 2003). As a consequence, the system name was modified to MEGATEMII. The system also flies with a magnetometer for measuring the intensity of the earth?s field. In this paper, we review the results of our experience of using the MEGATEM system over the last 8 years. A comparison of systems with different power at the Reid-Mahaffy test site clearly demonstrates how the amplitude of the anomaly increases with increasing moment. A height attenuation test over the Iso ore body has been used to estimate the signal and noise levels of the system and to estimate the depth of penetration of the system when looking for this type of body. A test survey in the Athabasca basin of northern Saskatchewan has demonstrated that the MEGATEM system can see a large body at 700 m depth in a highly resistive environment. In a nearby location, a comparison of TEMPEST and MEGATEM shows the relative strengths of the two systems. Tests conducted at the Gallen site with the transmitter off show that how signals radiated from a nearby power line can corrupt the data. These data have been used to demonstrate an improved way of reducing this type of noise that makes it easier to identify true anomalies close to a power line. A comparison of a MEGATEM survey with an older survey in an area within the Chibougamau district has been used to document the improvements of the system compared with the results of an older survey. The greater depth of penetration of the MEGATEM system compared with a helicopter system is illustrated by a model study.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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