MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768484487 · doi:10.1190/geo2016-0703.1

Prestack structurally constrained impedance inversion

2017· article· en· W2768484487 on OpenAlexaff
Haitham Hamid, Adam Pidlisecky, Larry Lines

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BCUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)PrestackGeologyTikhonov regularizationAlgorithmElectrical impedanceRegularization (linguistics)Synthetic dataInverse transform samplingInverse problemSeismologyComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsSurface wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classical prestack impedance inversion methods are based on performing a common-depth point (CDP) by CDP inversion using Tikhonov-type regularization. We refer to it as lateral unconstrained inversion (1D-LUI). Prestack seismic data usually have a low signal-to-noise ratio, and the 1D-LUI approach is sensitive to noise. The inversion results can be noisy and lead to an unfocused transition between vertical formation boundaries. The lateral constrained inversion (1D-LCI) can suppress the noise and provide sharp boundaries between inverted 1D models in regions where the layer dips are less than 20°. However, in complex geology, the disadvantage of using the 1D-LC approach is the lateral smearing of the steeply dipping layers. We have developed a structurally constrained inversion (1D-SCI) approach to mitigate the smearing associated with 1D-LCI. SCI involves simultaneous inversion of all seismic CDPs using a regularization operator that forces the solution to honor the local structure. The results of the 1D-SCI were superior compared with the 1D-LUI and 1D-LCI approaches. The steeply dipping layers are clearly visible on the SCI inverted results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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