MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005028058 · doi:10.3390/app10031027

3D Numerical Modeling of Induced-Polarization Grounded Electrical-Source Airborne Transient Electromagnetic Response Based on the Fictitious Wave Field Methods

2020· article· en· W3005028058 on OpenAlexaff
Yanju Ji, Xiangdong Meng, Weimin Huang, Yanqi Wu, Gang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite-difference time-domain methodAmplitudeMaxwell's equationsTime domainElectromagnetic fieldElectrical conductorPolarization (electrochemistry)Transient (computer programming)Transient responsePhysicsFrequency domainAcousticsComputer scienceMathematical analysisEngineeringOpticsClassical mechanicsMathematicsElectrical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The grounded electrical-source airborne transient electromagnetic (GREATEM) system is widely used in mineral exploration. Meanwhile, the induced polarization (IP) effect, which indicates the polarizability of the earth, is often found. In this paper, the Maxwell equations in the frequency domain are transformed into fictitious wave domain, where Maxwell equations are solved by the time domain finite difference method. Then, an integral transformation method is used to convert the calculation results back to the time domain. A three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulation in a polarizable medium is presented. The accuracy of this method is proven by comparing it with the analytical solution and the existing method, and the calculation efficiency is increased five-fold. The simulation results show that the GREATEM system has a higher response amplitude in the conductive region, while IP effects cannot be identified in the conductive area. The GREATEM system has a higher response amplitude in the low-resistance region, but IP effects cannot be identified in the low-resistance area, and the detection of IP effects is more suitable for the high-resistance area. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the detection ability of the GREATEM system in the low-resistance area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207