MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using 2D long-streamer seismic data waveform tomography to decipher sedimentary record of fault activity

2020· article· en· W3093209236 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Kahrizi, Matthias Delescluse, Mathieu Rodriguez, Pierre-Henri Roche, Anne Bécel, M. R. Nedimović, D. J. Shillington

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyWaveformTomographyAmplitudeReflection (computer programming)Inversion (geology)Fault (geology)TectonicsGeophysicsAcousticsComputer scienceVoltageOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acoustic full-waveform inversion (FWI), or waveform tomography, involves use of both phase and amplitude of the recorded compressional waves to obtain a high-resolution P-wave velocity model of the propagation medium. Recent theoretical and computing advances now allow the application of this highly non-linear technique to field data. This led to common use of the FWI for industrial purposes related to reservoir imaging, physical properties of rocks, and fluid flow. Application of FWI in the academic domain has, so far, been limited, mostly because of the lack of adequate seismic data. While refraction seismic datasets include large source-receiver offsets that are useful to find a suitable starting velocity model through traveltime tomography, these acquisitions rarely reach the high density of receivers necessary for waveform tomography. On the other hand, multichannel seismic (MCS) reflection data acquisition has a dense receiver spacing but only modern long-streamer data have offsets that, in some cases, enable constraining subsurface velocities at a significant enough depth to be useful for structural or tectonic purposes. In this study, we show how FWI can help decipher the record of a fault activity through time at the Shumagin Gap in Alaska. The MCS data were acquired on RV Marcus G. Langseth during the ALEUT cruise in the summer of 2011 using two 8-km-long seismic streamers and a 6600 cu. in. tuned airgun array. One of the most noticeable reflection features imaged on two profiles is a large, landward-dipping normal fault in the overriding plate; a structural configuration making the area prone to generating both transoceanic and local tsunamis, including from landslides. This fault dips ~40°- 45°, cuts the entire crust and connects to the plate boundary fault at ~35 km depth, near the intersection of the megathrust with the forearc mantle wedge. The fault system reaches the surface at the shelf edge 75 km from the trench, forming the Sanak basin where the record of the recent activity of the fault is not clear. Indeed, contouritic currents tend to be trapped by the topography created by faults, even after they are no longer active. Erosion surfaces and onlaps from contouritic processes as well as gravity collapses and mass transport deposits results in complex structures that make it challenging to evaluate the fault activity. The long streamers used facilitated recording of refraction arrivals in the target continental slope area, which permitted running streamer traveltime tomography followed by FWI to produce coincident detailed velocity profiles to complement the reflection sections. FWI imaging of the Sanak basin reveals low velocities of mass transport deposits and velocity inversions indicate mechanically weak layers linking some faults to gravity sliding on a décollement. These details question previous interpretation of a present-day active fault. Our goal is to further analyze the behavior of the fault system using the P-wave velocity models from FWI to quantitatively detect fluids and constrain sediment properties.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207