MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792328331 · doi:10.1190/int-2017-0202.1

Determination of target-oriented parameters for computation of curvature attributes

2018· article· en· W2792328331 on OpenAlex
Lee Hunt, Bahaa Beshry, Satinder Chopra, Cole Webster

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureGeologyContext (archaeology)HorizonComputationComputer scienceGeometryMathematicsAlgorithmPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of curvature attributes on seismic horizons or 3D seismic volumes has been discussed in the literature in several ways. Such discussion largely ignores the detail of parameter selection that must be made by the working interpreter or the expert processor. Parameter selection such as window size and filtering methods for seismic curvature estimates have not been extensively compared in the literature and have never been validated using quantitative ground truthing to log or drilling data. Of even greater relevance to the interpreter is the lack of discussion of curvature parameters as they are relevant to interpretive and operational concerns. We focus on the seismic most-positive curvature attribute, its parameterization, and filtering for the overpressured tight sand target in the Falher F formation of the deep basin of Alberta, Canada. This sand has numerous natural fractures that constitute an occasional drilling hazard due to mud losses. Various parameterizations on horizon- and volume-based curvature extractions are made and examined in the context of the drilling results of four horizontal wells, one of which has image log fracture density along the lateral portion of the well. We compared different lateral (and vertical where applicable) window sizes in the initial curvature estimates, as well as different postcurvature filtering approaches including unfiltered, Gaussian-filtered, and Fourier-filtered products. The different curvature attribute estimates have been evaluated by way of map comparisons, cross-section seismic line comparisons, and correlations with the upscaled fracture density log data. We found that our horizon-based estimates of positive curvature suffered from mechanical artifacts related to the horizon picking process, and the volume-based methods were generally superior. Of the volume-based methods, we found that the Fourier-filtered curvature estimates were the most stable through smaller analysis windows. Gaussian-filtering methods on volumetric curvature gave results of varying quality. Unfiltered volumetric curvature estimates were only stable when very large time windows were used, which affected the time localization of the estimate. The comparisons give qualitative and quantitative perspective regarding the best parameters of curvature to predict the key properties of geologic target, which in this case are the potentially hazardous natural fractures within the overpressured Falher F sandstone.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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