MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2966995266 · doi:10.1190/segam2019-3212531.1

Nonlinear inversion for stress- and fluid-sensitive parameters

2019· article· en· W2966995266 on OpenAlexaff
Huaizhen Chen, K. A. Innanen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)Nonlinear systemGeologySeismic inversionStackingWorkflowAmplitudeNon-linear least squaresAlgorithmEstimation theoryComputer scienceMathematicsSeismologyOpticsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on Gassmann’s fluid substitution model, we set up a workflow for nonlinear inversion of seismic data for dry rock moduli, fluid factors and a stress-sensitive parameter. We first make an approximation within the fluid substitution equation, replacing the porosity term with a stress-sensitive parameter. We then derive a linearized reflection coefficient in terms of a stress-parameter reflectivity, and re-express it in terms of elastic impedance (EI). An amplitude-variation-with-offset (AVO) inversion workflow is set up, in which the seismic data are transformed to EI, after stacking within three incidence angle ranges; these are then inverted to determine the stress-sensitive parameter. The two-step process involves two inversions with significantly different properties. The first is a model-based least-squares inversion (in the estimation of EI); the second is a more complex nonlinear inversion of the EI for a set of unknowns including the stress parameter. Motivated by an interest in hybridizing AVO and full waveform inversion (FWI), we set the latter step up to resemble some features of a published AVO-FWI formulation. The approach is subjected to synthetic validation, which permits us to analyze the response and test the stability of the workflow. The response of the workflow to data acquired over a gas-bearing reservoir is suggestive that the approach generates potential indicators of both fluid presence and stress prediction. Presentation Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 Session Start Time: 8:30 AM Presentation Time: 9:20 AM Location: 217D Presentation Type: Oral

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→