MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405433760 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggv523

<i>In situ</i>evidence for frequency dependence of near-surface<i>Q</i>

2015· article· en· W2405433760 on OpenAlexaff
Guofa Li, Mauricio D. Sacchi, Hao Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneGeologySeismologyInterference (communication)AttenuationSurface waveReflection (computer programming)Seismic waveNoise (video)Coupling (piping)Quality (philosophy)AcousticsPhysicsOpticsTelecommunicationsMaterials scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frequency dependence of the quality factor Q has long been predicted by mathematical modelling and laboratory measurements; however, in situ evidence from seismic surveys is still lacking. We have conducted the cross-hole seismic surveys to investigate the near-surface seismic attenuation in the Daqing oilfield in northeastern China. The seismic waves were fired in a source hole of 40 m from the bottom to the surface at an interval of 1 m and were recorded in a receiver hole of 40 m by two geophones with one at the surface and the other one at the bottom. The direct waves were extracted to avoid the noise disturbance and the reflection interference, and the attenuations without the effects of the source signature and the receiver coupling were estimated by a method we proposed. The nonlinear attenuations were observed and fitted using the power-law-based Q. The reliability of Q estimate was verified by the high similarity between the real and the simulated attenuations. Therefore, the experiment we have conducted can be treated as a reliable evidence for the frequency dependence of near-surface Q.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207