Reliable linear transformation of pseudo-pole-pole electrical resistivity datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a given fixed array of electrodes, a very large number of four-electrode measurements can be made. However, most of the possible measurements are not linearly independent, indicating that a smaller number of measurements can be made in order to save time, and the results of other measurements can be calculated later. In some cases, this calculation process can amplify measurement errors and so a robust quality control criterion is needed. In the past, it has been demonstrated that pole-pole, pole-dipole and pseudo-pole-dipole data can be used as a basis for calculating other measurements. In this study, we consider pseudo-pole-pole datasets as a basis. We define a pseudo-pole-pole array as one in which there is always a fixed current and potential reference electrode, but these reference electrodes are not necessarily far from the rest of the measurement array. We show that all four-electrode measurements can be easily calculated from pseudo-pole-pole data in ways that are similar to pole-pole data. We additionally show that good quality pseudosections and inversion results can be recovered from transformed data from pseudo-pole-pole data, especially for transformed data in configurations similar to the Wenner- α array. We also show that independent normal and reciprocal four-electrode measurements can be calculated for each four-electrode array and the comparison of these can be used as a quality control criterion. Our results show that a comprehensive dataset can be easily acquired from a pseudo-pole-pole survey which gives the geophysicist almost complete freedom of choice of array type to use in inversions. • Any four-electrode measurement can be calculated from linear superposition of four pseudo-pole-pole measurements. • Both normal and reciprocal measurements can be calculated and the difference used as a quality control. • Measurements calculated from transformed pseudo-pole-pole data agree well with direct simulations and measurements. • Agreement is especially good for alpha-type arrays. • Pseudo-pole-pole surveys provide an easy way to acquire a comprehensive dataset.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".