MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958145471 · doi:10.1190/geo2019-0046.1

Focal-time analysis: A new method for stratigraphic depth control of microseismicity and induced seismic events

2019· article· en· W2958145471 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew Poulin, Ronald Weir, David W. Eaton, Nadine Igonin, Yukuan Chen, Laurence R. Lines, Don C. Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocenterMicroseismGeologySeismologyOffset (computer science)BoreholeInduced seismicityFocal mechanismInversion (geology)Vertical seismic profileGeodesySeismic inversionTectonicsAzimuthComputer scienceOpticsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Focal-time analysis is a straightforward data-driven method to obtain robust stratigraphic depth control for microseismicity or induced seismic events. The method eliminates the necessity to build an explicit, calibrated velocity model for hypocenter depth estimation, although it requires multicomponent 3D seismic data that are colocated with surface or near-surface microseismic observations. Event focal depths are initially expressed in terms of zero-offset focal time (two-way P-P reflection time) to facilitate registration and visualization with 3D seismic data. Application of the focal-time method requires (1) high-quality P- and S-wave time picks, which are extrapolated to zero offset and (2) registration of correlative P-P and P-S reflections to provide VP and VS time-depth control. We determine the utility of this method by applying it to a microseismic and induced-seismicity data set recorded with a shallow-borehole monitoring array in Alberta, Canada, combined with high-quality multicomponent surface seismic data. The calculated depth distribution of events is in good agreement with hypocenter locations obtained independently using a nonlinear global-search method. Our results reveal that individual event clusters have distinct depth distributions that can provide important clues about the mechanisms of fault activation.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207