MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981379060 · doi:10.1080/08123985.2019.1662291

On the time decay constant of AEM systems: a semi-heuristic algorithm to validate calculations.

2019· article· en· W2981379060 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExploration Geophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversitySNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)HeuristicAlgorithmConstant (computer programming)Time constantComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Value (mathematics)VoltageData acquisitionPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time decay constant or “tau” of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) systems is commonly used to indicate the presence and relative conductivity or conductance of conductors in the survey area. In fact, it is not a constant because it depends on the system, the survey design and the method of calculation. The system dependence is a consequence of parameters relating to the acquisition and pre- and post-processing of the signal. Here, we propose a method for calculating tau, which is the time at which the transient voltage decays to 37%, or V37, of some initial value. The model utilises a semi-heuristic algorithm to estimate V37 for each transient in the database and then calculates the delay time at which that voltage is measured, which estimates tau. No calculation is involved with the data, instead, tau is given by a weighted average of the delay times associated with windows either side of the V37 value. We illustrate how this algorithm works using data collected using MEGATEM II at the Reid Mahaffy test site. The results show good agreement between tau-grids reported previously and those calculated using our V37 method. To account for all effects due to the acquisition and processing of EM data, the algorithm allows emphasis to be shifted away from early-time to late-time parts of the transient. It is envisaged that because this method does not apply any mathematical operation to the data it may serve as a robust means of validating other methods.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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