MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896460791 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.201800826

3D Airborne EM Forward Modelling by the Spectral-Element Method for Deformed Hexahedral Meshes

2018· article· en· W2896460791 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyang Huang, Changchun Yin, Colin G. Farquharson, Xiaoyue Cao, Y. Liu, B. Zhang, Jiangdong Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexahedronPolygon meshJacobian matrix and determinantFinite element methodComputationComputer scienceAlgorithmInversion (geology)Mesh generationSubdivisionComputational scienceMathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer graphics (images)EngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Accuracy and efficiency of forward modelling is important for successful and practical inversion and interpretation of airborne EM data. Finite-difference and finite-element methods are currently the most common methods used. However, an alternative approach is the spectral-element (SE) method, which is attractive because of its flexibility and potential for high accuracy. The SE method has previously been implemented for airborne EM modeling using regular hexahedral meshes. Here, we implement the SE method for deformed hexahedral meshes. This enables complex geological bodies to be modelled. A shape function is used to calculate the Jacobian matrix of the mapping between the physical mesh coordinates and the reference coordinates for the SE method. We apply our SE method to the computation of frequency-domain airborne EM responses. Through some numerical examples with rough mesh subdivision and simple mesh deformation, we demonstrate the flexibility and accuracy of the SE method for computing frequency-domain airborne EM responses, —thus verifying the potential of SE method for modeling complex geological bodies.

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)0.000
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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
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

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedingsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207