MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215999384 · doi:10.1190/int-2021-0136.1

A review of some amplitude-based seismic geometric attributes and their applications

2021· review· en· W3215999384 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sumit Verma, Satinder Chopra, Thang Ha, Fangyu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsARC Resources (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudeGeologyCurvatureSeismologyCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Energy (signal processing)SeismometerGeodesyGeometryMathematicsOpticsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seismic interpreters frequently use seismic geometric attributes, such as coherence, dip, curvature, and aberrancy for defining geologic features, including faults, channels, angular unconformities, etc. Some of the commonly used coherence attributes, such as cross correlation or energy-ratio similarity, are sensitive to only waveform shape changes, whereas the dip, curvature, and aberrancy attributes are based on changes in reflector dips. There is another category of seismic attributes, which includes attributes that are sensitive to amplitude values. Root-mean-square amplitude is one of the better-known amplitude-based attributes, whereas coherent energy, Sobel-filter similarity, normalized amplitude gradients, and amplitude curvature are among lesser-known amplitude-based attributes. We have computed not-so-common amplitude-based attributes on the Penobscot seismic survey from the Nova Scotia continental shelf consisting of the east coast of Canada, to bring out their interpretive value. We analyze seismic attributes at the level of the top of the Wyandot Formation that exhibits different geologic features, including a synthetic transfer zone with two primary faults and several secondary faults, polygonal faults associated with differential compaction, as well as fixtures related to basement-related faults. The application of the amplitude-based seismic attributes defines such features accurately. We take these applications forward by describing a situation in which some geologic features do not display any bending of reflectors but only exhibit changes in amplitude. One such example is the Cretaceous Cree Sand channels present in the same 3D seismic survey used for the previous applications. We compute amplitude curvature attributes and identify the channels, whereas these channels are not visible on the structural curvature display. In both of the applications, we observe that appropriate corendering not-so-common amplitude-based seismic attributes lead to convincing displays, which can be of immense aid in seismic interpretation and help define the different subsurface features with more clarity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207