MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595246481 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201601439

Constraining Acoustic Impedance Inversion by Seismic-processing Velocities

2016· article· en· W2595246481 on OpenAlexaffabout
Y. Wang, Igor B. Morozov

Bibliographic record

Venue78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic inversionInversion (geology)Electrical impedanceGeologyAcoustic impedanceSeismologyStackingData processingSeismic to simulationAcousticsComputer scienceAzimuthGeometryEngineeringMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Reflection seismic data are often transformed into acoustic-impedance (AI) pseudo-logs for quantitative reservoir prediction. However, a well-known difficulty of AI inversion methods consists in the lack of low-frequency information in seismic records. This missing information can be partly recovered from stacking, interval, and migration velocities derived from seismic processing. Here, seismic-processing (stacking) velocities are transformed into the low-frequency impedances and calibrated by the impedances calculated from acoustic logs. Empirical non-linear relations between the seismic-processing and well-log impedances are derived. These dependences are further extrapolated to 3-D data volumes and used as low-frequency constraints on AI inversion. The approach is incorporated in a high-quality AI inversion method and illustrated on a time-lapse 3-D 3-C dataset from Weyburn CO2 sequestration project in southern Saskatchewan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207