MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908085908 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2018.2852632

A Nonlinear Regression Application via Machine Learning Techniques for Geomagnetic Data Reconstruction Processing

2019· article· en· W2908085908 on OpenAlexaff
Huan Liu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Liu, Yihao Liu, Junchi Bin, Fang Shi, Haobin Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEarth's magnetic fieldComputer scienceMachine learningSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkHyperplaneBoosting (machine learning)Interpolation (computer graphics)AlgorithmData miningMathematicsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrity of geomagnetic data is a critical factor in understanding the evolutionary process of Earth's magnetic field, as it provides useful information for near-surface exploration, unexploded explosive ordnance detection, and so on. Aimed to reconstruct undersampled geomagnetic data, this paper presents a geomagnetic data reconstruction approach based on machine learning techniques. The traditional linear interpolation approaches are prone to time inefficiency and high labor cost, while the proposed approach has a significant improvement. In this paper, three classic machine learning models, support vector machine, random forests, and gradient boosting were built. Besides, a deep learning algorithm, recurrent neural network, was explored to further improve the training performance. The proposed learning models were used to specify a continuous regression hyperplane from a training data. The specified regression hyperplane is a mapping of the relation between the mock-up missing data and the surrounding intact data. Afterward, the trained models, essentially the hyperplanes, were used to reconstruct the missing geomagnetic traces for validation, and they can be used for reconstructing further collected new field data. Finally, numerical experiments were derived. The results showed that the performance of our methods was more competitive in comparison with the traditional linear method, as the reconstruction accuracy was increased by approximately 10%~20%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207