MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090287105 · doi:10.1190/segam2020-3427220.1

Joint inversion of airborne electromagnetic and total magnetic intensity data using Gramian structural constraints: Case study of the Reid-Mahaffy test site in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3090287105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael R. Jorgensen, Leif H. Cox, Michael S. Zhdanov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInversion (geology)GeologyJoint (building)Computer scienceRemote sensingGeophysicsSeismologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acquisition of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data is usually combined with the total magnetic intensity (TMI) surveying, making these two geophysical methods a natural choice for joint inversion. In this paper, we present an algorithm for joint inversion of the frequency or time domain airborne electromagnetic (AEM) and TMI data producing structurally similar 3D conductivity and susceptibility models. The method is based on the structural Gramian constraints (Zhdanov et al., 2012; Zhdanov, 2015), which enforce structural correlations of the gradients of different physical property models. The method is illustrated by the results of inverting the frequency-domain DIGHEM AEM and airborne magnetic data collected over the Reid-Mahaffy test site in Ontario, Canada. By combining these complementary datasets, we produce subsurface images of geological structures with the sharper boundaries, stronger structural correlations, and with the same level of data misfit as the standalone inversions. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 Session Start Time: 9:20 AM Presentation Time: 9:20 AM Location: Poster Station 7 Presentation Type: Poster

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207