MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789713209 · doi:10.1002/2018gl076995

Numerical Solutions of the Mean‐Value Theorem: New Methods for Downward Continuation of Potential Fields

2018· article· en· W2789713209 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chong Zhang, Qingtian Lü, Jiayong Yan, Guang Qi

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Academy of Geological SciencesChina Geological SurveyNatural Resources CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsContinuationAnalytic continuationDivergence (linguistics)Taylor seriesMathematicsApplied mathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Fourier transformStability (learning theory)Interpretation (philosophy)Mathematical analysisComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Downward continuation can enhance small‐scale sources and improve resolution. Nevertheless, the common methods have disadvantages in obtaining optimal results because of divergence and instability. We derive the mean‐value theorem for potential fields, which could be the theoretical basis of some data processing and interpretation. Based on numerical solutions of the mean‐value theorem, we present the convergent and stable downward continuation methods by using the first‐order vertical derivatives and their upward continuation. By applying one of our methods to both the synthetic and real cases, we show that our method is stable, convergent and accurate. Meanwhile, compared with the fast Fourier transform Taylor series method and the integrated second vertical derivative Taylor series method, our process has very little boundary effect and is still stable in noise. We find that the characters of the fading anomalies emerge properly in our downward continuation with respect to the original fields at the lower heights.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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