MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889849035 · doi:10.1190/geo2018-0060.1

Robust refraction statics solution and near-surface velocity model building using feedback from reflection data

2018· article· en· W2889849035 on OpenAlexafffund
Bernard K. Law, Daniel Trad

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStaticsRefractionResidualInversion (geology)Reflection (computer programming)GeologyOpticsAlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT An accurate near-surface velocity model is critical for weathering statics correction and initial model building for depth migration and full-waveform inversion. However, near-surface models from refraction inversion often suffer from errors in refraction data, insufficient sampling, and over-simplified assumptions used in refraction algorithms. Errors in refraction data can be caused by picking errors resulting from surface noise, attenuation, and dispersion of the first-arrival energy with offset. These errors are partially compensated later in the data flow by reflection residual statics. Therefore, surface-consistent residual statics contain information that can be used to improve the near-surface velocity model. We have developed a new dataflow to automatically include median and long-wavelength components of surface-consistent reflection residual statics. This technique can work with any model-based refraction solution, including grid-based tomography methods and layer-based methods. We modify the cost function of the refraction inversion by adding model and data weights computed from the smoothed surface-consistent residual statics. By using an iterative inversion, these weights allow us to update the near-surface velocity model and to reject first-arrival picks that do not fit the updated model. In this nonlinear optimization workflow, the refraction model is derived from maximizing the coherence of the reflection energy and minimizing the misfit between model arrival times and the recorded first-arrival times. This approach can alleviate inherent limitations in shallow refraction data by using coherent reflection data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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