Introduction to this special section: Gravity, electrical, and magnetic methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geophysics plays an important role in all aspects of geologic analysis, spanning from regional exploration and tectonic mapping to local prospect-level studies and energy transition projects. Out of a variety of geophysical techniques, seismic methods often play the most central role, while less expensive nonseismic methods are less frequently applied. One of the objectives of SEG's Gravity and Magnetics Committee is to promote nonseismic geophysical methods and showcase their value in various geologic applications. As members of that committee, we, the editors of this special section, assert that gravity, magnetic, and electrical methodologies are powerful yet often undervalued tools. We present this special section focused on nonseismic geophysical methods and the impact they can make on various geoscience projects. Included here are a regional tectonic study in Antarctica, a local mining exploration mapping project in Canada, and an analytical methodology capable of providing critical information about subsurface geology and helping to determine the depths of important geologic structures. Although our scope is to provide a broader discussion of different types of nonseismic techniques, all of the papers presented in this special section focus on magnetic surveying.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.021 |
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".