MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212069947 · doi:10.3390/min11111281

Informed Local Smoothing in 3D Implicit Geological Modeling

2021· article· en· W3212069947 on OpenAlexaff
Jan von Harten, Miguel de la Varga, M. J. Hillier, Florian Wellmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersH2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology
KeywordsSmoothingKrigingInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmData miningRepresentation (politics)Range (aeronautics)Field (mathematics)Noise (video)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological models are commonly used to represent geological structures in 3D space. A wide range of methods exists to create these models, with much scientific work focusing recently on implicit representation methods, which perform an interpolation of a three-dimensional field where the relevant boundaries are then isosurfaces in this field. However, this method has well-known problems with inhomogeneous data distributions: if regions with densely sampled data points exist, modeling artifacts are common. We present here an approach to overcome this deficiency through a combination of an implicit interpolation algorithm with a local smoothing approach. The approach is based on the concepts of nugget effect and filtered kriging known from conventional geostatistics. It reduces the impact of regularly occurring modeling artifacts that result from data uncertainty and data configuration and additionally aims to improve model robustness for scale-dependent fit-for-purpose modeling. Local smoothing can either be manually adjusted, inferred from quantified uncertainties associated with input data or derived automatically from data configuration. The application for different datasets with varying configuration and noise is presented for a low complexity geologic model. The results show that the approach enables a reduction of artifacts, but may require a careful choice of parameter settings for very inhomogeneous data sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207