MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891809352 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12687

Prediction of sonic velocities from other borehole data: An example from the Kevitsa mine site, northern Finland

2018· article· en· W2891809352 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Duy Thong Kieu, Anton Kepic, Maria Cornelia Kitzig

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFirst Quantum MineralsAustralian Government
KeywordsBoreholeGeologyPetrophysicsSeismologyEconomic geologyRegional geologyEnvironmental geologyWell loggingSonic loggingSeismic inversionIgneous petrologyEngineering geologyGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringPorosityVolcanismData assimilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT P‐wave and S‐wave velocities are vital parameters for the processing of seismic data and may be useful for geotechnical studies used in mine planning if such data were collected more often. Seismic velocity data from boreholes increase the robustness and accuracy of the images obtained by relatively costly seismic surface reflection surveys. However, sonic logs are rarely acquired in boreholes in‐and‐near base metal and precious metal mineral deposits until a seismic survey is planned, and only a few new holes are typically logged because the many hundreds of holes previously drilled are no longer accessible. If there are any pre‐existing petrophysical log data, then the data are likely to consist of density, magnetic susceptibility, resistivity and natural gamma logs. Thus, it would be of great benefit to be able to predict the velocities from other data that is more readily available. In this work, we utilize fuzzy c‐means clustering to build a “fuzzy” relationship between sonic velocities and other petrophysical borehole data to predict P‐wave and S‐wave velocity. If boreholes with sonic data intersect most of the important geological units in the area of interest, then the cluster model developed may be applied to other boreholes that do not have sonic data, but do have other petrophysical data to be used for predicting the sonic logs. These predicted sonic logs may then be used to create a three‐dimensional volume of velocity with greater detail than would otherwise be created by the interpolation of measured sonic data from sparsely located holes. Our methodology was tested on a dataset from the Kevitsa Ni‐Cu‐PGE deposit in northern Finland. The dataset includes five boreholes with wireline logs of P‐wave velocity, S‐wave velocity, density, natural gamma, magnetic susceptibility and resistivity that were used for cluster analysis. The best combination of input data for the training section was chosen by trial and error, but differences in the misfit between the various training datasets were not particularly significant. Our results show that the fuzzy c‐means method can predict sonic velocities from other borehole data very well, and the fuzzy c‐means method works better than using multiple linear‐regression fitting. The predicted P‐wave velocity data are of sufficient quality to robustly add low‐frequency information for seismic impedance inversion and should provide better velocity models for accurate depth conversion of seismic 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207