MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968907162 · doi:10.1190/segam2019-3216304.1

Design and deployment of a prototype multicomponent distributed acoustic sensing loop array

2019· article· en· W2968907162 on OpenAlexaff
K. A. Innanen, Don C. Lawton, Kevin Hall, Kevin L. Bertram, Malcolm B. Bertram, Henry C. Bland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentComputer scienceLoop (graph theory)Range (aeronautics)Field (mathematics)EngineeringSoftware engineeringMathematicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016-2017 a range of analyses and applications of a geometrical model of fibre-optic (DAS) data for arbitrary fibre shapes was described. Amongst those applications was a multicomponent estimation scheme based on a careful accounting, and combined useage, of the varying fibre directions associated with a shaped cable layout. In 2018 a prototype shaped DAS fibre array was buried at the Containment and Monitoring Institute Field Research Station in Newell County AB to put some of these ideas and their feasibility to the test. The loop was illuminated from several directions, and shot records were analyzed to assess if directional sensitivity is sufficient to permit multiple components of strain to be estimated simultaneously. By picking a P-wave arrival and comparing it to an analytic model, we conclude with a cautious “yes”. The size of the loop (roughly 10 m on a side) was chosen to accommodate standard DAS gauge lengths; at this size, horizontal but not vertical strain rate components were sensed. Future versions designed for gauge lengths on the order of 2 m will permit 6-component estimation. Presentation Date: Monday, September 16, 2019 Session Start Time: 1:50 PM Presentation Time: 2:15 PM Location: 221C 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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207