Modelling the electromagnetic response of a sphere located in a layered earth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating the electromagnetic response of a conductive sphere in a layered earth is of great interest in terms of both modelling and interpretating data acquired via geophysical electromagnetic methods where the target is at some distance from the source and receiver. This is particularly the case when using Airborne Electromagnetic Method (AEM) where the source and receiver are located at some height above the subsurface. This problem can be solved by utilising field expansions representing derivatives of cylindrical functions, which describe the fields propagating in the layered earth, and spherical functions, which describe the fields reflected by the sphere. Furthermore, these representations allow the development of relationships between cylindrical and spherical functions. These functions and subsequent relationships have been used to develop an algorithm for estimating the electromagnetic response of a conductive sphere in an isotropic layered earth. Software based on this algorithm has been tested on both synthetic and field data. The field data presented were collected with the AEM AirTEM system over the Reid-Mahaffy test site, Ontario, Canada. Results from these tests prove the importance and utility of integrating the sphere in a layered earth model in the AEM interpretation toolbox.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".