MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Optimal resolution seismic tomography: Lithospheric thinning beneath the British Tertiary Igneous Province and other new observations

2020· article· en· W3166745044 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Bonadio, Sergei Lebedev, P. Arroucau, A. J. Schaeffer, Andrea Licciardi, Matthew Agius, Claor Horan, Louise Collins, B. M. O’Reilly, P. W. Readman, the Ireland Array Working Team

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeodesyTomographyPhase (matter)SmoothnessAlgorithmGeometryMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximum achievable resolution of a tomographic model varies spatially and depends on the data sampling and errors in the data. Adaptive parameterization schemes match the spatial variations in data sampling but do not address the effects of the errors. The propagation of systematic errors, however, is resistant to data redundancy and results in models dominated by noise if the target resolution is too high. This forces us to look for smoother models and thus limits the imaging resolution. We develop a surface-wave tomography method that finds optimal lateral resolution at every point by means of error tracking. We first measure inter-station phase-velocities at simultaneously recording station pairs and compute phase-velocity maps at densely, logarithmically spaced periods. Unlike in the classical approach, multiple versions of the maps with varying smoothness constraints are computed, so that the maps range from very rough to very smooth. Phase-velocity curves extracted from the maps at every point can then be inverted for shear-velocity (Vs) profiles. As we show, errors in these phase-velocity curves increase nearly monotonically with the map roughness. Very smooth Vs models computed from very smooth phase-velocity maps will be the most robust, but at a cost of a loss of most structural information. At the other extreme, models that are too rough will be dominated by noise. We define the optimal resolution at a point such that the error of the local phase-velocity curve is below an empirical threshold. The error is estimated by isolating the roughness of the phase-velocity curve that cannot be explained by any Earth structure. A 3D Vs model is then computed by the inversion of the phase-velocity maps with the optimal resolution at every point. The estimated optimal resolution shows smooth lateral variations, confirming the robustness of the procedure. Importantly, optimal resolution does not scale with the density of the data coverage: some of the best-sampled locations require relatively low lateral resolution, probably due to systematic data errors. We apply the method to image the Ireland’s and Britain’s upper mantle, using our large, new regional dataset. We report a pronounced thinning of the lithosphere beneath the British Tertiary Igneous Province, with important implications for the Paleogene uplift and volcanism in the region.

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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→