MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400810209 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2024.3431217

3-D Full-Waveform Inversion of the “Snowflake” Baseline Dataset: Toward Monitoring of CO₂ Storage Through Inversion of Multioffset, Multiazimuth VSP Data at the Newell County Facility in Alberta, Canada

2024· article· en· W4400810209 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hyeong-Geun Ji, K. A. Innanen, Sea-Eun Park, Ju‐Won Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAzimuthInversion (geology)Offset (computer science)WaveformBaseline (sea)Computer scienceGeologySeismologyTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The carbon capture and storage (CCS) project is gaining attention for its role in greenhouse gas reduction. In the CCS project, monitoring injected CO2 is crucial for safe and sustainable operation. The Containment and Monitoring Institute (CaMI) project has been launched to secure CO2 monitoring techniques, particularly using the time-lapse seismic survey. In this work, we apply 3-D acoustic full-waveform inversion (FWI) to the walk-away and walk-around vertical seismic profiling data. To construct a baseline P-wave velocity model for future monitoring studies, we compare the performance of 2-D and 3-D FWI on this data. We first conduct a synthetic FWI test using a 1-D velocity model created from well-log data to identify optimal parameters and potential issues. Finally, we apply FWI to real data and analyze the inverted results. As a result, compared with 2-D FWI, we verify that 3-D FWI can be a valuable tool to build a baseline model, anticipating its future extension into 4-D seismic monitoring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207