The feasibility and value of low-frequency data collected using co-located 2 Hz and 10 Hz geophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We acquired a 3D surface seismic field test using an improved low-frequency vibrator with co-located 2 Hz and 10 Hz geophones. To our knowledge, this is the first field experiment employing a low-frequency vibrator and 2 Hz geophones. Since 2 Hz geophones were not widely available, we had custom made 2 Hz geophones constructed for this field experiment. The objectives of this field study are to investigate: (1) the feasibility of recording low-frequency signals using a low-frequency enhanced vibrator and 2 Hz geophones, (2) the degradation of low-frequency signals of 10 Hz geophones when comparing with 2 Hz geophones, and (3) the possibility of a novel idea using both co-located data sets to boost up the low-frequency signals of 10 Hz geophone data. The analyses of the 10 Hz and 2 Hz geophone data in prestack and poststack domains concluded that 2 Hz geophone data clearly exhibited more low-frequency signals than the 10 Hz geophone data. The 2 Hz geophone stack had low-frequency signals down to 2 Hz, and a spiking deconvolution further extended the amplitude spectrum down to 1 Hz. The deterministic match filter derived from both co-located data sets improved the low-frequency signals of the 10 Hz geophone data.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".