MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313458928 · doi:10.1190/tle42010061.1

EcoSeis: A novel acquisition method for optimizing seismic resolution while minimizing environmental footprint

2023· article· en· W4313458928 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Naghizadeh, Peter Vermeulen, Andrea Crook, Alyson Birce, Stephanie Ross, Aaron Stanton, Máximo Rodríguez, Warren Cookson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)Quadrise Canada Corporation (Canada)Stantec (Canada)Alberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootprintData acquisitionComputer scienceGridInversion (geology)Remote sensingData processingResource (disambiguation)Oil fieldField (mathematics)Data miningGeologyPetroleum engineeringSeismologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract All exploration and production projects, whether for oil-and-gas, mining, or clean-technology applications, begin with an accurate image of the subsurface. Many technologies have been developed to enable the acquisition of cost-effective seismic data, with high-density land seismic programs becoming commonplace. However, as the industry progresses and the long-term surface footprint associated with these programs becomes better understood, new methods are needed to reduce the environmental impact of seismic data acquisition while maintaining sufficient subsurface resolution for accurate resource development. New acquisition geometries are typically easier to create than test in the field due to the high cost of field acquisition and processing. However, by using existing data acquired in a grid, one can decimate the original data set into multiple geometries and process them. This provides an opportunity to fully test new geometries without the expense of field acquisition. In this paper, we present processing, interpretation, and inversion tests from an existing ultra-high-density oil-sands seismic data set decimated based on ecologically improved program designs. We then measure and compare the results to understand the impact of these geometries on subsurface resolution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207