MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767278967 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12597

An application of waveform denoising for microseismic data using polarization–linearity and time–frequency thresholding

2017· article· en· W2767278967 on OpenAlexaff
Jubran Akram

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismThresholdingWaveformNoise reductionComputer scienceSignal processingNoise (video)Time domainArtificial intelligenceGeologyTelecommunicationsComputer visionSeismologyRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Noise suppression or signal‐to‐noise ratio enhancement is often desired for better processing results from a microseismic dataset. In this paper, a polarization–linearity and time–frequency‐thresholding‐based approach is used for denoising waveforms. A polarization–linearity filter is initially applied to preserve the signal intervals and suppress the noise amplitudes. This is followed by time–frequency thresholding for further signal‐to‐noise ratio enhancement in the S transform domain. The parameterisation for both polarization filter and time–frequency thresholding is also discussed. Finally, real microseismic data examples are shown to demonstrate the improvements in processing results when denoised waveforms are considered in the workflow. The results indicate that current denoising approach effectively suppresses the background noise and preserves the vector fidelity of signal waveform. Consequently, the quality of event detection, arrival‐time picking, and hypocenter location improves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207