MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997190361 · doi:10.1190/int-2019-0027.1

Application of sparse-layer inversion and harmonic bandwidth extension for a channel system in Southern Alberta, Canada

2019· article· en· W2997190361 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yang Mu, John P. Castagna, Gabriel Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBandwidth (computing)Inversion (geology)BroadbandSeismic inversionGeologyWidebandSeismic traceBandwidth extensionAzimuthAlgorithmComputer scienceOpticsSeismologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sparse-layer reflectivity inversion decomposes a seismic trace into a limited number of simple layer responses and their corresponding reflection coefficients for top and base reflections. In contrast to sparse-spike inversion, the applied sparsity constraint is less biased against layer thickness and can thus better resolve thin subtuning layers. Application to a 3D seismic data set in Southern Alberta produces inverted impedances that have better temporal resolution and lateral stability and a less blocky appearance than sparse-spike inversion. Bandwidth extension harmonically extrapolated the frequency spectra of the inverted layers and nearly doubled the usable bandwidth. Although the prospective glauconitic sand tunes at approximately 37 m, bandwidth extension reduced the tuning thickness to 22 m. Bandwidth-extended data indicate a higher correlation with synthetic traces than the original seismic data and reveal features below the original tuning thickness. After bandwidth extension, the channel top and base are more evident on inline and crossline profiles. Lateral facies changes interpreted from the inverted acoustic impedance of the bandwidth-extended data are consistent with observations in wells.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207