MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201608086 · doi:10.1190/geo2020-0779.1

Convolutional neural networks applied to the interpretation of lineaments in aeromagnetic data

2021· article· en· W3201608086 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tomas Naprstek, Richard S. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkData setLineamentGeologySet (abstract data type)Synthetic dataNoise (video)Interpretation (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceRange (aeronautics)Computer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Tilt (camera)Data miningGeophysicsImage (mathematics)SeismologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Parameter estimation in aeromagnetics is an important tool for geologic interpretation. Due to aeromagnetic data being highly prevalent around the world, it can often be used to assist in understanding the geology of an area as a whole or for locating potential areas of further investigation for mineral exploration. Methods that automatically provide information such as the location and depth to the source of anomalies are useful to the interpretation, particularly in areas where a large number of anomalies exist. Unfortunately, many current methods rely on high-order derivatives and are therefore susceptible to noise in the data. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are a subset of machine-learning methods that are well-suited to image processing tasks, and they have been shown to be effective at interpreting other geophysical data, such as seismic sections. Following several similar successful approaches, we have developed a CNN methodology for estimating the location and depth of lineament-type anomalies in aeromagnetic maps. To train the CNN model, we used a synthetic aeromagnetic data modeler to vary the relevant physical parameters, and we developed a representative data set of approximately 1.4 million images. These were then used for training classification CNNs, with each class representing a small range of depth values. We first applied the model to a series of difficult synthetic data sets with varying amounts of noise, comparing the results against the tilt-depth method. We then applied the CNN model to a data set from northeastern Ontario, Canada, that contained a dike with known depth that was correctly estimated. This method is shown to be robust to noise, and it can easily be applied to new data sets using the trained model, which has been made publicly available.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207