MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335161216 · doi:10.1190/segam2015-5861135.1

Using well logs to estimate the effect of fine layering on Q estimation

2015· article· en· W2335161216 on OpenAlexafffund
Gary F. Margravé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLayeringEstimationComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The long-standing prediction that a seismic wave propagating in a finely layered earth model displays an apparent attenuation is investigated. Called stratigraphic filtering, this effect looks much like constant-Q attenuation and adds to intrinsic attenuation to produce effective attenuation. Using a 1D synthetic seismogram algorithm, the seismic response is calculated for a sequence of finely layered models derived from well logs with assigned Q values. The models all have a finely-layered Q structure, representing intrinsic attenuation, derived from measured density and sonic logs by an empirical relation. The model properties are all sampled at 0.5 m intervals and averaged into constant thickness layers. Using 0.5 m layers, when the Q value is carefully measured using the spectral-ratio technique, the measured Q is always lower than that expected from the specified model. In a series of experiments in which various physical effects are turned off and on again, it is demonstrated conclusively that this Q bias is due to internal multiples. Using a series of models derived from the same logs but with progressively thicker layers (each model has constant thickness layers and each is sampled a 0.5m) it is demonstrated that there is significant measurement bias for layer thicknesses less than 10m but for thicknesses greater than this the bias disappears. The feasibility of estimating stratigraphic Q from such experiments and using these measurements to correct measurements from field data is suggested.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207