MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200376790 · doi:10.1190/geo2021-0120.1

Toward improved distributed acoustic sensing sensitivity for surface-based reflection seismics: Configuration tests at the Aquistore CO2 storage site

2021· article· en· W4200376790 on OpenAlexaff
Don White, Gilles Bellefleur, Kevin Dodds, Zeinab Movahedzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPetroleum Technology Research CentreGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneTrenchOffset (computer science)GeologySensitivity (control systems)Horizontal planeAmplitudeOpticsReflector (photography)Distributed acoustic sensingAcousticsOptical fiberGeodesySeismologyFiber optic sensorMaterials sciencePhysicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Alternative fiber configurations have been tested in an attempt to improve the sensitivity of surface-deployed distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) fiber cables for the purpose of recording steep-angle P-wave reflections. Four alternative fiber configurations were deployed at the Aquistore CO2 storage site to record 401 dynamite shots during a 3D vertical seismic profiling survey. The test cable comprised horizontal configurations (straight fiber, helixes, and asymmetric helixes) buried in a shallow trench and vertical configurations (straight fiber and helixes) deployed in 3.5 m drillholes. Evaluation focused on deep reflections with two-way traveltimes of 0.8–1.8 s. All of the alternative fiber configurations increased the sensitivity relative to the horizontal straight fiber. Sensitivity was highest for the vertical straight fiber configurations and the asymmetric helixes with sensitivity increases of more than 10 and 5 dB, respectively, and amplitude-variation-with-offset behavior similar to that of a vertical-component geophone for reflections with incidence angles of 0°–15° at the surface and 0°–34° at the reflector. Modeling of the DAS responses explains the general pattern of sensitivity variability among the different configurations, but it does not explain the large range of observed sensitivities.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207