MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037425898 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12998

Orthotropic anisotropy: on contributions of elasticity parameters to a difference in quasi‐P‐wave‐squared velocities resulted from propagation in two orthogonal symmetry planes

2020· article· en· W3037425898 on OpenAlexafffund
Filip P. Adamus

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOrthotropic materialAnisotropyPhase velocityElasticity (physics)Wave propagationMathematical analysisPerpendicularSensitivity (control systems)PhysicsMathematicsGeometryOpticsFinite element methodThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We investigate the dependence of quasi P‐wave phase velocity propagating in orthotropic media on particular elasticity parameters. Specifically, due to mathematical facilitation, we consider the squared‐velocity difference, , resulted from propagation in two mutually perpendicular symmetry planes. In the context of the effective medium theory, may be viewed as a parameter evaluating the influence of cracks – embedded in the background medium – parallel to one or both aforementioned planes. Our investigation is both theoretical and numerical. Based on Christoffel's equations, we propose two accurate approximations of . Due to them, we interpret the aforementioned squared‐velocity difference as being twice more dependent on , than on . To describe the magnitude of the dependence, we consider the proportions between the partial derivatives of . Further, it occurs that is influenced by the ratio of vertically propagating quasi P‐wave to vertically propagating quasi S‐wave. Anomalously high might be caused by the low P/S ratio, which in turn can be an indicator of the presence of gas in natural fractures or aligned porosity. Also, we carry out numerical sensitivity study, according to which is approximately twice more dependent on than on , twice more sensitive to than to , and equally dependent on as on . The dependence on and can be neglected, especially for small phase angles. We verify the approximations and perform the sensitivity study, using eight examples of the elasticity tensors.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207