MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949267433 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.08245

3D electromagnetic modelling and inversion: A case for open-source

2019· preprint· en· W2949267433 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas W. Oldenburg, Lindsey J. Heagy, Seogi Kang, Rowan Cockett

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagneticsOpen sourceComputer scienceUploadInversion (geology)SoftwareSource codeComputational electromagneticsComputational scienceA priori and a posterioriGeophysicsData scienceElectronic engineeringEngineeringGeologyPhysicsWorld Wide WebElectromagnetic fieldSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetics has an important role to play in solving the next generation of geoscience problems. These problems are multidisciplinary, complex, and require collaboration. This is especially true at the base scientific level where the underlying physical equations need to be solved, and data, associated with physical experiments, need to be inverted. In this paper, we present arguments for adopting an open-source methodology for geophysics and provide some background about open-source software for electromagnetics. Immediate benefits are the reduced time required to carry out research, being able to collaborate, having reproducible results, and being able to disseminate results quickly. To illustrate the use of an open-source methodology in electromagnetics, we present two challenges. The first is to simulate data from a time domain airborne system over a conductive plate buried in a more resistive earth. The second is to jointly invert airborne TDEM and FDEM data with ground TDEM. SimPEG, Simulation and Parameter Estimation in Geophysics, (https://simpeg.xyz) is used for the open-source software. The figures in this paper can be reproduced by downloading the Jupyter Notebooks we provide with this paper (https://github.com/simpeg-research/oldenburg-2018-AEM). Access to the source code allows the researcher to explore the simulations and inversions by changing model and inversion parameters, plot fields and fluxes to gain further insight about the EM phenomena, and solve a new research problem by using open-source software as a base. By providing results in a manner that allows others to reproduce, further explore, and even extend them, we hope to demonstrate that an open-source paradigm has the potential to enable more rapid progress of the geophysics community as a whole.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.121 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207