MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598545131 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12516

Modelling and straight‐ray tomographic imaging studies of cross‐hole radio‐frequency electromagnetic data for mineral exploration

2017· article· en· W2598545131 on OpenAlexaff
Yongxing Li, Richard S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomographyMultiphysicsAmplitudeBoreholeElectromagnetic radiationAcousticsTomographic reconstructionWavelengthElectromagnetic fieldPhase (matter)GeologyRadio frequencyImaging phantomPhysicsOpticsFinite element methodComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Radio‐frequency electromagnetic tomography (or radio imaging method) employs radio‐frequency (typically 0.1–10 MHz) electromagnetic wave propagation to delineate the distribution of electric properties between two boreholes. Currently, the straight‐ray imaging method is the primary imaging method for the radio imaging method data acquired for mineral exploration. We carried out synthetic studies using three‐dimensional finite‐element modelling implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics to study the electromagnetic field characteristics and to assess the capability of the straight‐ray imaging method using amplitude and phase data separately. We studied four sets of experiments with models of interest in the mining setting. In the first two experiments, we studied models with perfect conductors in homogeneous backgrounds, which show that the characteristics of the electromagnetic fields depend mainly on the wavelength. When the borehole separations are less than one wavelength, induction effects occur; conductors with simple geometries can be recovered acceptably with amplitude data but are incorrectly imaged on the phase tomogram. When the borehole separations are longer than two wavelengths, radiation effects play a major role. In this case, phase tomography provides images with acceptable quality, whereas amplitude tomography does not provide satisfactory results. The third experiment shows that imaging with both original and reciprocal datasets is somewhat helpful in improving the imaging quality by reducing the impact of noise. In the last experiment, we studied models with conductive zones extended into the borehole plane with different lengths, which were not accurately recovered with amplitude tomography. The experiment implies that it is difficult to determine the extent of a mineralised zone that has been intersected by one of the boreholes. Due to the large variation of the wavelength in the radio‐frequency range, we suggest investigating the local electric properties to select an operating frequency prior to a survey. We conclude that straight‐ray tomography with either amplitude or phase data cannot provide high‐quality imaging results. We suggest using more general methods based on full electromagnetic modelling to interpret the data. In circumstances when computational time is critical, we suggest saving time by using either induction methods for borehole separations less than one wavelength or wave‐based methods (only radiation fields are considered) for borehole separation larger than two wavelengths.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.344
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207