MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601455779 · doi:10.1061/9780784480441.070

Quantifying and Analyzing the Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Down-Hole Seismic Testing

2017· article· en· W2601455779 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Styler, Ilmar Weemees, John Rogie

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Frontiers 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologySignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Seismic waveCone penetration testVertical seismic profileAcousticsStackingShear (geology)Geotechnical engineeringOpticsPhysicsPetrologyNuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic traces are obtained during the seismic cone penetration test (SCPTu). These traces are compared to determine the propagation time, which is used to calculate seismic wave velocities. We present a method to quantify the quality of the trace by calculating the signal to noise ratio (SNR). We analyzed a set of 25 SCPTu profiles to investigate how SNR degrades with increased penetration depth. We show that signal-stacking repeated seismic tests can be used to mitigate the loss of signal to noise ratio without a significant penalty to the production rate of the seismic cone penetration test at typical test depths. Our work has implications in the development of best-practice down-hole seismic testing. This may improve the confidence in the reported shear wave velocities and lead to improved shear wave velocity applications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Frontiers 2017Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207