Azimuthal anisotropy analysis of multiazimuth P-wave seismic data — An example from the Rock Springs Uplift, Wyoming, USA
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study area in Rock Sprigs Uplift, Wyoming, lies close to the carbon dioxide ([Formula: see text])-producing Jim Bridger power plant, and hence it is a good site for carbon sequestration. Two subsurface reservoirs within this area are being analyzed for their capability of long-term carbon storage. The presence and orientation of fractures within a reservoir and the associated seal govern the efficiency and long-term effectiveness of [Formula: see text] storage. The presence of natural fractures gives rise to seismic anisotropy that is related to the fracture orientation and density. This work analyzed P-wave multiazimuth seismic amplitude and well data from a potential carbon sequestration site for the anisotropy analysis. Using prestack waveform inversion, accurate azimuthal velocities were obtained for offset-to-angle transformation and to compute azimuthal angle gathers. These angle gathers were then stacked for each azimuth and analyzed for azimuthal anisotropy to estimate the fracture orientation and relative fracture density. Finally, by corroborating the results of the seismic azimuthal analysis with well data, it was confirmed that the results from the azimuthal analysis of the angle stacks are related to the fracture orientation and density.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it