MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777282903 · doi:10.1190/geo2017-0183.1

Estimating P- and S-wave inverse quality factors from observed seismic data using an attenuative elastic impedance

2017· article· en· W2777282903 on OpenAlexaff
Huaizhen Chen, K. A. Innanen, Tiansheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverse problemInverseInversion (geology)Seismic inversionAnelastic attenuation factorAttenuationGeologyAcoustic impedanceBayesian probabilitySeismic waveElectrical impedanceSeismologyStatisticsMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

P- and S-wave inverse quality factors quantify seismic wave attenuation, which is related to several key reservoir parameters (porosity, saturation, and viscosity). Estimating the inverse quality factors from observed seismic data provides additional and useful information during gas-bearing reservoir prediction. First, we have developed an approximate reflection coefficient and attenuative elastic impedance (QEI) in terms of the inverse quality factors, and then we established an approach to estimate elastic properties (P- and S-wave impedances, and density) and attenuation (P- and S-wave inverse quality factors) from seismic data at different incidence angles and frequencies. The approach is implemented as a two-step inversion: a model-based and damped least-squares inversion for QEI, and a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo inversion for the inverse quality factors. Synthetic data tests confirm that P- and S-wave impedances and inverse quality factors are reasonably estimated in the case of moderate data error or noise. Applying the established approach to a real data set is suggestive of the robustness of the approach, and furthermore that physically meaningful inverse quality factors can be estimated from seismic data acquired over a gas-bearing reservoir.

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 score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Citations37
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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