A new methodology using seismic data to differentiate shallow-water carbonate deposits from similar, noncarbonate structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present here a new methodology for helping to recognize shallow-water carbonate deposits in seismic data, implementing a quantitative tool, developed in a spreadsheet format, or table, that allows us to score shallow-water carbonate deposits against six specific types of similar, noncarbonate structures. We can score 15 parameters for each structure type. The table contains a description for each combination of structure type and parameter. The final result helps to distinguish noncarbonate structures from shallow-water carbonate deposits. Noncarbonate structures include arc volcanoes, other kinds of volcanoes, mobilized salt, shale, and mud structures, compressional tectonic features, basement highs, and erosional remnants. We have grouped diagnostic parameters in four categories, which include morphology, regional scale parameters, seismic response, and growth patterns. Testing, performed on 214 internal, multiclient, and published images from different ages and locations, has shown a positive match in 90% of the cases, 6% as negative matches, and 4% as uncertain results. The addition of new assessment criteria to previously published indicators, the strategy of scoring noncarbonate structures along with shallow-water carbonate deposits, and the attempt of building this methodology for the use of nonspecialist geoscientists are the main elements of novelty with respect to previous assessment techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".