MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599160982 · doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2016052

Comparison between 2D and 3D ERT inversion for engineering site investigations – a case study from Oslo Harbour

2016· article· en· W2599160982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNear Surface Geophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarbourInversion (geology)GeologyExcavationEngineering geologyRegional geologyEconomic geologyEnvironmental geologyElectrical resistivity tomographyTelmatologySeismologyHydrogeologyElectrical resistivity and conductivityGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceVolcanismTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Excavation and piling works related to seafront development in Oslo’s historic harbour area need to mitigate the risk of damaging buried archaeological objects. In the Bjørvika harbour in Oslo, Norway, electrical resistivity tomography was performed to detect structures with potential archaeological value. A 2.5 dataset consisting of four equally spaced parallel lines was collected, trimmed, and systematically processed with both 2D and 3D inversion routines. The results were in good agreement with known underground features, and for the present dataset, an iteratively reweighted least squares 2D inversion was clearly preferable over a 3D inversion. This conclusion is based on differences in model resolution, data processing costs, and the value of the final product for engineering decision‐making.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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