Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hydrogeophysics workshop sponsored by the SEG Research Committee was recently held in Vancouver, Canada, to explore the science of geophysics as related to the exploration, development, remediation, storage, and monitoring of water resources. Rosemary Knight (Stanford University), Klaus Holliger (University of Lausanne), and David Hyndman (Michigan State University) organized the workshop with sponsorship from Schlumberger Water Services, ABEM, Geometrics, Geonics, Geotomographie, IRIS Instruments, Mount Sopris Instruments, and Sensors & Software. The Hydrogeophysics Workshop had strong attendance and third-party sponsorship that compares favorably with previous successful SEG exploration geophysics workshops. It was a good example of a recent effort by SEG to emphasize smaller, theme-based forums and workshops. More than one person had comments similar to: “I get my networking done at the large conventions, but I get my technology updates at these small meetings.” By all measures, this meeting was a huge success and the SEG Near-Surface Geophysics Section (NSGS) looks forward to future workshops held in collaboration with societies of allied disciplines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".