Deep Learning Applications in Geosciences: Insights into Ichnological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ichnological analysis, particularly assessing bioturbation index, provides critical parameters for characterizing many oil and gas reservoirs. It provides information on reservoir quality, paleodepositional conditions, redox conditions, and more. However, accurately characterizing ichnological characteristics requires long hours of training and practice, and many marine or marginal marine reservoirs require these specialized expertise. This adds more load to geoscientists and may cause distraction, errors, and bias, particularly when continuously logging long sedimentary successions. In order to alleviate this issue, we propose an automated technique to determine the bioturbation index in cores and outcrops by harnessing the capabilities of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) as image classifiers. In order to find a fast and robust solution, we utilize ideas from deep learning. We compiled and labeled a large data set (1303 images) composed of images spanning the full range (BI 0–6) of bioturbation indices. We divided these images into groups based on their bioturbation indices in order to prepare training data for the DCNN. Finally, we analyzed the trained DCNN model on images and obtained high classification accuracies. This is a pioneering work in the field of ichnological analysis, as the current practice is to perform classification tasks manually by experts in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".