MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2967858097 · doi:10.1190/segam2019-3214092.1

A robust workflow for performing joint impedance inversion with applications from North American Basins

2019· article· en· W2967858097 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ritesh Kumar Sharma, Satinder Chopra, Larry Lines

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowInversion (geology)Computer scienceElectrical impedanceGeologyJoint (building)Data miningStructural basinDatabaseEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicomponent seismic data offers many advantages for characterizing reservoirs with the use of the vertical component (PP) and the mode-converted (PS) data. Joint impedance inversion inverts both these datasets simultaneously, and hence is considered superior to simultaneous impedance inversion. However, the success of joint impedance inversion depends on how accurately the PS data is mapped on the PP time domain. Normally, this is attempted by following well-to-seismic ties for both PP and PS datasets, and the matching of different horizons picked on both PP and PS data. Though, it seems to be a straightforward approach there are a few issues associated with it. One of them is the lower resolution of the PS data than the PP data which presents difficulties in the correlation of the equivalent reflection events on both the datasets. Even if few consistent horizons get tracked, the horizon matching process introduces some artifacts on the PS data mapped into PP time. In this exercise, we elaborate on such challenges with a dataset from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin and then propose a novel workflow for addressing them. The value addition provided by the proposed workflow has been demonstrated by comparing data examples generated both with and without its adoption Presentation Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 Session Start Time: 9:20 AM Presentation Time: 9:20 AM Location: Poster Station 1 Presentation Type: Poster

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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