MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334571568 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201413357

Computing Near-surface S-wave Velocity Models by Inversion of Converted-wave Traveltime Differences

2015· article· en· W2334571568 on OpenAlexaff
Raul Cova, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)StaticsGeologySurface waveSimulated annealingAlgorithmInterferometrySeismic inversionGeodesyComputer scienceGeometryMathematicsSeismologyPhysicsAzimuthOpticsTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Characterizing the near-surface is an important part of solving seismic static problems. It is also a critical step as input for more general iterative inversion methods applied to land seismic data. In the case of converted waves this becomes even more true due to the large magnitudes of the shear-wave statics. In this study, a solution based on the difference in conversion traveltimes between receivers is proposed. This solution may be useful for inverting delay times retrieved by interferometric techniques. Due to the complexity of the partial derivatives of the forward modelling operator for this case we decided against local descent-based methods, adopting instead a simulated annealing inversion method. This is also justified by the complex topography of the objective function. Performing a representative number of iterations of the proposed algorithm successfully retrieves the true parameters of the model. Since traveltime differences were used, the inverted parameters only allowed us to compute changes in the depth of the base of the near-surface rather than its absolute value. This can be fixed through a calibration process given the depth of the low velocity zone for at least at one receiver location.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.153 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207