Using gravity data uncertainties in forward modeling to estimate uncertainties in model parameters: A case history in estimating the dip and the dip uncertainty of the Porcupine Destor Fault
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT When using forward modeling to estimate model parameters, such as the dip, it also is important to estimate the corresponding uncertainty in the model parameters. For gravity data, these uncertainties are dependent on the uncertainty in the Bouguer-corrected data. The uncertainty in the gravity meter reading and the height used in the free-air and Bouguer corrections are among the most important factors influencing the uncertainty in the Bouguer-corrected data. We use two methods for estimating the uncertainty in the Bouguer-corrected data, which give similar answers (0.121 mGal and 0.109 mGal). The uncertainty in the model parameters can be estimated by perturbing the corrected data multiple times by amounts consistent with the estimated uncertainty in the corrected gravity. The standard deviation of the model parameters derived from each perturbed data set gives an estimate of their uncertainty. Using this procedure for Bouguer gravity profiles that cross the Porcupine Destor Fault (a fault that is prospective for gold in the Timmins camp of Ontario, Canada), we find that the uncertainty in the dip is 1° or 2°, assuming a planar or linear fault. If the uncertainty in the corrected data had been 1 mGal (a value typical of regional surveys, instead of 0.1 mGal for a local survey), then the uncertainty in the dip is 41° for the same model. Thus, knowing the uncertainties in the corrected data are very important for estimating the uncertainty in model parameters. Conversely, if a model parameter is known to be required to a specific precision, the survey can be planned so that the corrected gravity has an uncertainty appropriate to achieve that precision.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".