Magnetotelluric Study of the Saskatchewan Elbow Impact Structure and Applications of Finite-Element Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Elbow structure (50°59’N, 106°43’W) is located in south-central Saskatchewan on an\nelbow of the South Saskatchewan River. It was initially discovered using seismic methods by\nCarter Oil in 1943, and was then verified through drilling by Imperial Oil in 1945. Initially,\nthe structure was interpreted to be formed by either anticlinal or salt tectonism but was\nlater confirmed to be a crater impact. The Elbow structure is 8 km in diameter and circular\nin plan, with a central structurally uplifted area of fractured and brecciated target rocks\nsurrounded by a ring depression. The impact occurred between 370 to 420 million years ago\nduring the Devonian Period. Although seismic and gravity studies had been carried out by\noil and gas companies in the last century, which lead to the discovery and verification of\nthe Elbow structure, no electromagnetics studies (in particular magnetotellurics) have been\nused for Elbow crater exploration since then. In September 2019, a magnetotellurics (MT)\nsurvey was carried out at the Elbow site to study any subsurface geoelectric disturbance\ncaused by the impact. All aspects of a magnetotellurics study including survey planning,\nfield operation, data acquisition, processing and analysis, and inverse and forward model\ning are discussed in the thesis. Additionally, applications of finite-element modeling on the\nmagnetotellurics method using numerical modeling software COMSOL Multiphysics are dis\ncussed. The first application of numerical modeling focuses on the general magnetotellurics\nlayered Earth problem. The second application of finite-element modeling focuses on the\neffect of geomagnetically induced current (GIC) flow in overhead conducting skywires on the\nmagnetotellurics signal, particularly the vertical component of the magnetic field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".