MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012088129 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12954

Research Note: A proposed procedure for ameliorating edge effects in magnetic data transformations

2020· article· en· W3012088129 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Lelièvre, Dominique Fournier, Sean E. Walker, Nicholas Williams, Colin G. Farquharson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsBarrick Gold (Canada)Mira Geoscience (Canada)Memorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)MagnetizationTransformation (genetics)GeologyRegional geologyGeophysicsRemanenceMagnetic fieldCartesian coordinate systemComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsGeometryPhysicsHydrogeologySeismologyMetamorphic petrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Reduction to pole and other transformations of total field magnetic intensity data are often challenging to perform at low magnetic latitudes, when remanent magnetization exists, and when large topographic relief exists. Several studies have suggested the use of inversion‐based equivalent source methods for performing such transformations under those complicating factors. However, there has been little assessment of the importance of erroneous edge effects that occur when fundamental assumptions underlying the transformation procedures are broken. In this work we propose a transformation procedure that utilizes magnetization vector inversion, inversion‐based regional field separation and equivalent source inversion on unstructured meshes. We investigated whether edge effects in transformations could be reduced by performing a regional separation procedure prior to equivalent source inversion. We applied our proposed procedure to the transformation of total field magnetic intensity to all three Cartesian magnetic field components using a complicated synthetic example based on a real geological scenario from mineral exploration. While the procedure performed acceptably on this test example, the results could be improved. We pose many questions regarding the various choices and control parameters used throughout the procedure, but we leave the investigation of those questions to future work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207