MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245689285 · doi:10.4133/1.3445487

Update on Recent Observations in Multi‐Component Seismic Reflection Profiling

2010· article· en· W4245689285 on OpenAlexaffabout
A J -M Pugin, S E Pullan, James A. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Component (thermodynamics)Computer scienceReflection (computer programming)SeismologyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examples of multi-component shallow seismic reflection profiling from different environments in eastern Canada are presented to examine the benefits of shear wave reflection data and the latest developments in acquisition methodology, as well as our evolving understanding of the complex nature of seismic wave propagation. Examination of the wave motion through multi-component recording shows that, regardless of the source orientation, shear wave reflections may be polarized in varying directions. In “soft” soils characterized by low shear wave velocities, extremely high-resolution shear wave reflection sections can be obtained, with the highest-resolution data related to in-line or vertical components of motion. Data recorded in the transverse (SH) direction are generally somewhat lower in frequency but may be better able to penetrate into more compact (higher velocity) sediments. Multicomponent recording provides the capacity to record all data, without having to know the main shear wave polarization direction prior to data acquisition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2010Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207