Checking the consistency of 3D geological models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Three-dimensional geological modelling algorithms can generate multiple models that fit various mathematical and geometrical constraints. The results, however, are often meaningless to geological experts if the models do not respect accepted geological principles. This is problematic as use of the models is expected for various downstream purposes, such as hazard risk assessment, flow characterization, reservoir estimation, geological storage, or mineral and energy exploration. Verification of the geological reasonableness of such models is therefore important. If implausible models can be identified and eliminated, it will save countless hours and computational and human resources. To begin assessing geological reasonableness, we develop a framework for checking model consistency with geological knowledge and test it with a proof-of-concept tool. The framework consists of a space of consistent and inconsistent geological situations that can hold between a pair of geological objects, and the tool assesses a model's geological relations against the space to identify (in)consistent situations. The tool is successfully applied to several case studies as a first promising step toward automated assessment of geological reasonableness.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it