MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617240528 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201700677

Temporal Dispersion Correction and Prediction by Using Spectral Mapping

2017· article· en· W2617240528 on OpenAlexaff
Yuxiao Qin, S. Quiring, M. D. Nauta

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsAcceleware (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispersion (optics)Finite differenceFinite difference methodTRACE (psycholinguistics)Computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsOpticsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Time-domain finite difference (FD) modeling for wave propagation has been widely used for illumination studies and advanced imaging techniques such as RTM and FWI in complex geology. Any finite-order approximation of the time and space derivatives using FD methods suffer from some degree of numerical dispersion. The temporal and spatial dispersion are independent of each other. Spatial dispersion can be reduced with higher-order finite difference operators and optimized coefficients. The time derivatives are usually approximated to 2nd order. Thus, FD-based simulations and imaging methods often suffer from numerical temporal dispersion error. In this paper, we show that the numerical temporal dispersion from 2nd-order time FD can be corrected via a trace-by-trace spectral mapping operation. For RTM, this spectral mapping operation is to add the predicted temporal dispersion into each gather before backward propagation. This approach eliminates the temporal dispersion at only small cost. One clear benefit of the temporal dispersion correction is a significant speed up because a larger time step can be used.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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