Marine Vibrator Seismic Survey Pilot: Source Signature Comparisons and Operational Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The General Dynamics Marine Vibrator System completed the industry’s first pilot marine seismic survey in October of 2023. Source signatures for both the marine vibrator and airguns are processed and compared for a single line. Comparisons between peak over pressure, peak and average radiated power, total radiated energy, in-band radiated energy, power and energy spectral densities, bandwidth, and repeatability are made. Particular attention is paid to the difference in out-out-band radiated sound between the air guns and APS marine vibrators (which are specifically designed to have low harmonic distortion, high fidelity waveform control, and low out-of-band radiation). The microsecond-level GPS-based timing synchronization of the marine vibrators is discussed and characterized. In addition, the continuous, sweep-by-sweep quality assurance system that monitors timing synchronization and source signature fidelity, available in near-real-time both locally to the operators and remotely to the shore-based personnel, is shown. Special thanks is given to TotalEnergies, Shell, and ExxonMobil for sponsoring the pilot via the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, and to Kappa Offshore Solutions for efficiently conducting the pilot with zero HSE incidents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".