MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243191732 · doi:10.4133/1.2923520

Examples of the Effect of Magnetic Soil Environments on Time Domain Electromagnetic Data

2005· article· en· W4243191732 on OpenAlexaff
Sean E. Walker, Leonard R. Pasion, Stephen Billings, John F. Foley, Yaoguo Li, Douglas W. Oldenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTime domainComputer scienceMagnetic domainEnvironmental sciencePhysicsMagnetic fieldMagnetization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During September 2004 a field study was carried out on the Hawaiian Island of Kaho'olawe to explore various aspects of the effect of magnetic soils on time domain electromagnetic (TEM) measurements. This field work was in support of two Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funded research projects (UX1355 and UX1414) whose goals are to investigate the source and spatial variability of magnetic soil anomalies, to create a methodology for modelling the response of magnetic soils, and to develop TEM data collection techniques that can better discriminate between the response of magnetic soils and unexploded ordnance (UXO). Detailed electromagnetic surveys were carried out at a test site on the island. The data from the surveys verify the commonly held belief that magnetic variations in the soil can complicate the identification of UXO. However, the data also show that short wavelength variations in the TEM response due to micro‐topographic variations and coil orientation effects can generate responses that could mask a UXO and/or result in a false positive. An overview of the surveys, a discussion of preliminary results and some practical recommendations for surveying in magnetic soil environments will be presented.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207