MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2935904914 · doi:10.1190/geo2018-0484.1

A <i>k</i> -mean characteristic function for optimizing short- and long-term-average-ratio-based detection of microseismic events

2019· article· en· W2935904914 on OpenAlexaff
Jubran Akram, Daniel Peter, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)Event (particle physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Term (time)Field (mathematics)Receiver operating characteristicData miningFunction (biology)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPhysicsGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Event detection is an essential component of microseismic data analysis. This process is typically carried out using a short- and long-term-average-ratio (STA/LTA) method, which is simple and computationally efficient but often yields inconsistent results for noisy data sets. We have aimed to optimize the performance of the STA/LTA method by testing different input forms of 3C waveform data and different characteristic functions (CFs), including a proposed k-mean CF. These tests are evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and are compared based on synthetic and field data examples. Our analysis indicates that the STA/LTA method using a k-mean CF improves the detection sensitivity and yields more robust event detection on noisy data sets than some previous approaches. In addition, microseismic events are detected efficiently on field data examples using the same detection threshold obtained from the ROC analysis on synthetic data examples. We recommend the use of the Youden index based on ROC analysis using a training subset, extracted from the continuous data, to further improve the detection threshold for field microseismic 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207