MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220932069 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0323

Fusion of geotechnical and geophysical data for 2D subsurface site characterization using multi-source Bayesian compressive sampling

2022· article· en· W4220932069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiabao Xu, Yu Wang, Lulu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical investigationGeologyGeotechnical engineeringParametric statisticsGeophysical surveySampling (signal processing)Ground-penetrating radarSensor fusionExcavationGeophysicsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subsurface site characterization is essential for geotechnical engineering applications (e.g., slope stability analysis and deep excavation design), which is usually achieved through geotechnical site investigation and might be supplemented by geophysical survey. Geotechnical and geophysical investigations are complementary in many aspects. Geotechnical investigation provides direct measurement data with high accuracy but only at limited locations. On the other hand, geophysical survey provides abundant two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional measurements, but the data are often indirect. In addition, geotechnical and geophysical data are usually correlated. Therefore, fusion of geotechnical and geophysical data during site characterization is beneficial. This paper proposed a novel data fusion method, called multi-source Bayesian compressive sampling, for fusion of geotechnical and geophysical data and statistical characterization of 2D subsurface profiles. The proposed method is data-driven and non-parametric, without the need for an empirical parametric function between geotechnical and geophysical data. The proposed method was illustrated and validated using both numerical and real-life examples. The results show that the proposed method not only properly characterizes 2D subsurface profiles but also explicitly quantifies the statistical uncertainty associated with the site characterization.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207