MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2750001820 · doi:10.1190/segam2017-17559599.1

Characterizing intrinsic and stratigraphic Q in VSP data with information measures

2017· article· en· W2750001820 on OpenAlexaff
Siming Lv, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGeologyData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of distinguishing between intrinsic Q and stratigraphic filtering is a classical example of non-uniqueness in seismic data analysis. Two very different mechanisms affecting propagating waves – reverberations between thin layers and transformation of mechanical energy to heat – produce almost identical effects. A version of the Shannon entropy, defined on snapshots of a VSP wave field, has been proposed to analyze and compare these two influences. It has been used to argue that the distinction is not as meaningful as we might think, but here we take the opposite view: that with it we may separate the two effects. Besides the basic entropy measure, we further extend the entropy “attribute” to include conditional entropy, which incorporates correlations of seismic data points with their neighbouring values. Synthetic VSP data built from a range of well logs are used to investigate the separability of intrinsic/extrinsic sources of attenuation and dispersion. Progress of this kind may have impact on aspects of reservoir characterization such as viscosity estimation. Presentation Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 Start Time: 11:00 AM Location: 371A Presentation Type: ORAL

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→