MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504661623 · doi:10.1190/int-2016-0036.1

A case study showing the value of multioffset synthetic seismograms in seismic data interpretation

2016· article· en· W2504661623 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Helen Isaac, Don C. Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPenn West Exploration (Canada)University of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSeismogramSynthetic seismogramAmplitude versus offsetGeologySeismologyAmplitudeOffset (computer science)Reflection coefficientAnelastic attenuation factorSeismic surveySynthetic dataReflection (computer programming)CretaceousS-wavePoisson distributionGeodesySeismic waveAlgorithmPaleontologyStatisticsOpticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A baseline 3D3C seismic survey was acquired in May 2014 at a Field Research Station in Southern Alberta, Canada, which is the site of experimental CO2 injection into an Upper Cretaceous sandstone at approximately 300 m depth. We have created synthetic seismograms from sonic and density logs to identify reflectors seen on the processed seismic data. The high-amplitude positive response (peak) at the top of the Upper Cretaceous Milk River Formation sandstone on the normal incidence PP synthetic seismogram does not match the response seen on the migrated PP seismic data, which is a very low amplitude peak. For such a high impedance, low Poisson’s ratio sandstone, the Zoeppritz equations predict a high-amplitude reflection coefficient at zero offset, then a decrease in amplitude, and even a change in polarity with increasing source-receiver offset. To match the stacked seismic data better, we have created offset synthetic seismograms using P- and S-wave sonic logs and density logs. The character of the top Milk River reflection on the seismic data stacked using all offset traces resembles that observed on the stacked offset synthetic seismogram, which is a similar low-amplitude peak. The character of the top Milk River reflection on the seismic data stacked using only near-offset traces to 250 m looks like that seen on the normal incidence synthetic seismogram.

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)0.000
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207