SWprocess: a workflow for developing robust estimates of surface wave dispersion uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Non-invasive surface wave methods are increasingly being used as the primary technique for estimating a site’s small-strain shear wave velocity (Vs). Yet, in comparison to invasive methods, non-invasive surface wave methods suffer from highly variable standards of practice, with each company/group/analyst estimating surface wave dispersion data, quantifying its uncertainty (or ignoring it in many cases), and performing inversions to obtain Vs profiles in their own unique manner. In response, this work presents a well-documented, production-tested, and easy-to-adopt workflow for developing estimates of experimental surface wave dispersion data with robust measures of uncertainty. This is a key step required for propagating dispersion uncertainty forward into the estimates of Vs derived from inversion. The paper focuses on the two most common applications of surface wave testing: the first, where only active-source testing has been performed, and the second, where both active-source and passive-wavefield testing has been performed. In both cases, clear guidance is provided on the steps to transform experimentally acquired waveforms into estimates of the site’s surface wave dispersion data and quantify its uncertainty. In particular, changes to surface wave data acquisition and processing are shown to affect the resulting experimental dispersion data, thereby highlighting their importance when quantifying uncertainty. In addition, this work is accompanied by an open-source Python package, swprocess, and associated Jupyter workflows to enable the reader to easily adopt the recommendations presented herein. It is hoped that these recommendations will lead to further discussions about developing standards of practice for surface wave data acquisition, processing, and inversion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.038 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".