MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981878499 · doi:10.4095/289551

A geostatistical approach for two-dimensional seismic velocity modelling

2011· report· en· W2981878499 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maxime Claprood, Mathieu J. Duchesne, Erwan Gloaguen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismic velocitySeismologyGeostatisticsVariogramKrigingMathematicsStatisticsSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tests two geostatistical approaches, kriging with external drift (KED) and cokriging (CK), for building two-dimensional seismic velocity models for the reprocessing of vintage seismic reflection data collected in Canadian Western Arctic Islands between the late 1960s and the early 1980s. The interval thickness between horizons is estimated at all Common Mid Points (CMPs). The interval thickness evaluated at three well is used as the primary variable of kriging and the timethickness estimated from seismic horizon picking at all CMPs is used as the external drift to represent time-depth variations along the seismic line. The depth to horizons estimated by KED honours perfectly the depth evaluated at three wells, while the lateral variations of the horizons in depth closely follow those of the horizons picked in time-depth. In contrast to constant lateral velocity layer models often used in seismic processing, the velocity calculated from the KED allow modelling lateral velocity variations within each layers, providing a more realistic representation of the subsurface geology.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207