MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126333179 · doi:10.1190/tle40020150a1.1

Seismic imaging of a near-vertical vein using controlled-source seismic interferometry

2021· article· en· W3126333179 on OpenAlexaff
Kriselle Dias, Charles A. Hurich, Sharon Deemer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInterferometryDrillingHigh resolutionInversion (geology)Vertical seismic profileSeismic interferometrySeismologyGeophysical imagingFootprintRemote sensingEngineeringTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New methodologies for narrow-vein mining are making thin, steeply dipping mineralized veins economically viable mining targets. Drilling is the normal method for delineation and resource evaluation prior to mining. However, for the evaluation of narrow veins, significant drilling of barren rock is required. Controlled-source seismic interferometry has the potential to significantly decrease the costs of target delineation by providing high-resolution seismic images of thin, steeply dipping mineralized veins. We present a case study that employs seismic interferometry in conjunction with a walkaway vertical seismic profiling survey to image a thin (0.5–4 m), steeply dipping barite vein. The footprint of the seismic data acquisition is relatively small and compatible with operations in areas with limited access (e.g., mining camps). The technique requires some care with experimental design and data processing, but it is clearly demonstrated to produce a high-resolution seismic image. Furthermore, we demonstrate that inversion of the depth-migrated image can be used to quantify vein thickness and provide direct information for resource evaluation and reserve estimation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207