MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240930442 · doi:10.4133/sageep.27-044

ENHANCED ELECTRODE SEQUENCES FOR 2D ERI: FORWARD MODELING AND FIELD RESULTS

2014· article· en· W4240930442 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan Maxwell, Rob Luzitano

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrodeField (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have designed and evaluated enhanced electrode sequences for efficient collection of multiple array type data using the multi-channel advantages of modern electrical resistivity systems. Electrode sequences for 2D-ERI data collection attempt to balance tradeoffs between depth of investigation, resolution, quality, and time for data collection to adequately image subsurface resistivity variations. Often data collection time is controlled by site limitations or budgets and only Wenner or Wenner-Schlumberger data are collected. With the goals of efficient data acquisition and combining the advantages of different array types for 2D inversion, we have designed enhanced data sequences which provide combined dipole-dipole and Wenner-Schlumberger data in the same data collection time as for a Wenner-Schlumberger survey. Using a synthetic geological resistivity model from a previous ERI survey, we ran forward models using a variety of combined arrays and developed an optimized sequence. We used a 10-Channel IRIS120 with 88 electrodes to collect the enhanced data set over the same geology as used for the forward modeling. The initial investigation at the site used a Wenner-Schlumberger array that recorded 1773 measurements with the objective of imaging to a depth of approximately 40 meters. The survey provided reasonable resolution and was able to adequately characterize the bedrock but did not provide the more complex variations that were anticipated at the site and seen in limited drilling results. The enhanced data set collected over 4998 data points in the same 3 hour time period. For evaluation, we inverted the data set in three forms, using: only dipole-dipole data, only Wenner-Schlumberger data, and the combined data set. We used DCIP2D software provided by the University of British Columbia and RES2DINV software from Geotomo. The inversions demonstrate that the full (combined) data set provides the advantages of each array type, resulting in sharper structural boundaries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2014Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207