Calibration, Conversion, and Quantitative Multi-Layer Inversion of Multi-Coil Rigid-Boom Electromagnetic Induction Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-coil electromagnetic induction (EMI) systems induce magnetic fields below and above the subsurface. The resulting magnetic field is measured at multiple coils increasingly separated from the transmitter in a rigid boom. This field relates to the subsurface apparent electrical conductivity (σa), and σa represents an average value for the depth range investigated with a specific coil separation and orientation. Multi-coil EMI data can be inverted to obtain layered bulk electrical conductivity models. However, above-ground stationary influences alter the signal and the inversion results can be unreliable. This study proposes an improved data processing chain, including EMI data calibration, conversion, and inversion. For the calibration of σa, three direct current resistivity techniques are compared: Electrical resistivity tomography with Dipole-Dipole and Schlumberger electrode arrays and vertical electrical soundings. All three methods obtained robust calibration results. The Dipole-Dipole-based calibration proved stable upon testing on different soil types. To further improve accuracy, we propose a non-linear exact EMI conversion to convert the magnetic field to σa. The complete processing workflow provides accurate and quantitative EMI data and the inversions reliable estimates of the intrinsic electrical conductivities. This improves the ability to combine EMI with, e.g., remote sensing, and the use of EMI for monitoring purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".