MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618987017 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201700594

Shear Wave Reconstruction from Low Cost Randomized Acquisition

2017· article· en· W2618987017 on OpenAlexaff
Ali M. Alfaraj, Rajiv Kumar, Felix J. Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData acquisitionInterpolation (computer graphics)Shear wavesLongitudinal waveGeologyShear (geology)Sampling (signal processing)Computer scienceAcousticsGeodesyWave propagationComputer visionFilter (signal processing)PhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Shear waves travel in the subsurface at a lower speed compared with compressional waves. Therefore, much finer spatial sampling is required to properly record the shear waves. This leads to higher acquisition costs which are typically avoided by designing surveys geared towards only compressional waves imaging. We propose using randomly under-sampled ocean bottom acquisition designs for recording both compressional and shear waves. The recorded multicomponent data is then interpolated using an SVD-free low rank interpolation scheme that is feasible for large scale seismic data volumes to obtain finely sampled data. Following that, we perform elastic wavefield decomposition at the ocean bottom to recover accurate up- and dow-going S-waves. Synthetic data results indicate that using randomized under-sampled acquisition, we can recover accurate S-waves with an economical cost compared with conventional acquisition designs.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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