MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391463020 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggae036

Diving-wave time-lapse delay for CO2 thin layer detection

2024· article· en· W4391463020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ricardo Martinez, Vetle Vinje, Alexey Stovas, J. Mispel, Philip Ringrose, Kenneth Duffaut, Martin Landrø

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEquinorAker BPCanadian Geological Foundation
KeywordsGeologyLayer (electronics)SeismologyGeophysicsGeodesyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY We have derived an analytical approximate expression to estimate the delay in diving seismic waves due to thin layers of CO2. The expression is valid for high frequencies and can be used to estimate the delay in diving waves at seismic frequencies for large separations between the source and receiver (offset). The approximation may be used to assess CO2 detection limits using diving waves and to support survey planning for CO2 monitoring and full-waveform inversion (FWI) cycle skipping analysis. In this study, we analyse the diving-wave response to a thin layer of CO2 for band-limited data using acoustic finite-difference modelling, and compare the results against the analytical calculations. We find that the responses are offset-dependent and related to double- and single-leg interactions between the diving waves and the CO2. To test the methods, we created a synthetic representation of the 2010 subsurface conditions for the top CO2 layer at the Sleipner storage complex in the North Sea, by combining base and monitor post-stack seismic data with field velocity trends. Using the acoustic finite-difference method, we model pre-stack data that captures the complexity of field data and demonstrate the use of the diving-wave delay for CO2 migration monitoring and CO2 thin layer detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207