Shear and compressive wave data acquisition using multicomponent vibrating source and landstreamer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the vicinity of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, we have recorded many multicomponent seismic data sets using an in-house multicomponent vibrator source named Microvibe and a landstreamer receiver array with 48 3-C 28-Hz geophones at 0.75-m intervals. The receiver spread length was 35.25 m, and the near-offset was 1.50 m. We used one, two or three source and three receiver orientations — vertical (V), inline-horizontal (H1), and transverse-horizontal (H2). We identified several reflection wave modes in the field records — PP, PS, SP, and SS, in addition to refracted waves, and Rayleigh-mode and Love-mode surface waves. We computed the semblance spectra of the selected shot records and ascertained the wave modes based on the semblance peaks. We then performed CMP stacking of each of the 9-C data sets using the PP and SS stacking velocities to compute PP and SS reflection profiles. Despite the fact that any source type can generate any combination of wave modes — PP, PS, SP, and SS, partitioning of the source energy depends on the source orientation and VP/VS ratio. Our examples demonstrate that the most prominent PP reflection energy is recorded by the VV source-receiver orientation, whereas the most prominent SS reflection energy is recorded by the H2H2 source-receiver orientation with possibility to obtain decent shear wave near surface data in all other vibrating and receiving directions. Pugin, Andre and Yilmaz, Öz, 2019. Optimum source-receiver orientations to capture PP, PS, SP, and SS reflected wave modes. The Leading Edge, vol. 38/1, p. 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1190/tle38010045.1
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".