MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925183314 · doi:10.1190/geo2018-0134.1

Gravity modeling for crustal-scale models of rifted continental margins using a constrained 3D inversion method

2019· article· en· W2925183314 on OpenAlexaff
Meixia Geng, J. Kim Welford, Colin G. Farquharson, Xiangyun Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInversion (geology)GeologyWeightingA priori and a posterioriBathymetryCovarianceSeismic inversionProbabilistic logicSynthetic dataGeodesyInverse problemSeismologyAlgorithmComputer scienceTectonicsGeometryMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have developed a new constrained inversion method that is based on a probabilistic approach for resolving crustal structure from regional gravity data. The smoothness of estimated structures is included in the inversion by using a model covariance matrix, and the sparse boundary information obtained from seismic data is incorporated in the inversion by using linear equality constraints. Moreover, constraints on the average anomalous densities expected for different crustal layers are applied instead of using a depth-weighting function. Bathymetric data and sediment thicknesses are included in the inversion by using an a priori model. Using the proposed method, model structures with sharp boundaries can be obtained while the existing boundary information and sparse seismic constraints are honored. We determine through a synthetic example and a real-world example that the proposed constrained inversion method is a valid tool for studying crustal-scale structures.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207