MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2927443207 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12794

Automated processing strategies for ambient seismic data

2019· article· en· W2927443207 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Western Australia
KeywordsPassive seismicAmbient noise levelComputer scienceNoise (video)Seismic noiseData processingEnergy (signal processing)Signal processingGeophoneData setWorkflowData qualityReal-time computingGeologySeismologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsDatabaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Extracting body‐wave arrivals from ambient seismic recordings remains a challenging task, largely because ambient records are usually dominated by surface‐wave energy. Most ambient seismic data‐processing strategies aimed at enhancing body‐wave energy focus on a cross‐correlation plus stack methodology. While this approach is useful for interferometric investigations, it effectively squares the magnitude of unwanted coherent noise events (e.g. surface waves, burst‐like or strong monochromatic energy) that commonly overpower ambient body‐wave signal. Accordingly, coherent noise events are usually treated with a binary accept‐or‐reject decision of individual data windows based on root‐mean‐squared energy considerations. Applying a data‐processing workflow to uncorrelated ambient seismic data represents an alternate strategy for mitigating coherent noise. However, this pre‐stack methodology requires significant computational effort due to the often terabyte‐sized data volumes. To make this approach feasible, we outline an automated processing workflow to automatically identify and mitigate coherent noise events that otherwise does not severely degrade the remaining waveforms. After each processing step, we apply a number of quality control measures to monitor the convergence rate of cross‐correlation plus stack waveforms and for evidence of emerging body‐wave reflection events. We apply the processing flow to an ambient seismic data set acquired on a large‐N array at a mine site near Lalor Lake, Manitoba, Canada. Our quality control analyses suggest that automated preprocessing of uncorrelated ambient seismic recordings successfully mitigates unwanted impulsive and monochromatic coherent noise events. Accordingly, we assert that applying an automated data‐processing approach would be beneficial for body‐wave and other imaging and inversion analyses applied to ambient seismic recordings.

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.

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 score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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