MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408436121 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-7991

A field test of 3D reflection orientation analysis along a 2D crooked line in northern Finland supplemented with additional cross-spreads

2025· preprint· en· W4408436121 on OpenAlexaff
M. Malinowski, Andrew J. Calvert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Field (mathematics)Test (biology)Line (geometry)Orientation (vector space)GeologyGeometrySeismologyGeographyGeodesyComputer scienceMathematicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflection seismics is indispensable for understanding the structural framework of the crust and providing important constraints on mineral system studies. The non-uniqueness inherent in interpreting data from2D crooked seismic profiles acquired over complex geological structures can be reduced by performing 3D reflector orientation analysis (Calvert, 2017), but this requires good azimuthal coverage, which can be enhanced with the deployment of cross-spreads. A new 70-km long reflection seismic profile was acquired across the Palaeoproterozoic Peräpohja belt in northern Finland to shed new light on its structural framework and contribute to development of the new national mineral exploration program. Single-receiver and single-source acquisition was implemented, resulting in excellent data quality. Survey layout was optimized to extract 3D reflector orientations, and included eight additional cross-spreads extending up to 5 km from the survey line spaced every 7-8 km.3D reflector orientation analysis was performed for both the inline data (i.e. along the main profile) as well as with the cross-spreads included. The main challenge to processing these data is obtaining an optimal refraction statics solution: in the first pass, a combination of 2D inline statics with 2D statics for each cross-spreads was applied. In the second pass, a 3D tomostatics solution was obtained for the complete dataset. The initial results of the reflection orientation analysis suggests that while the additional effort in acquiring the cross-spreads may not be justified for obtaining the structural image (cross-spreads bring more noisy data), orientation attributes (dip and strike) are better resolved, especially at shallower levels, and where gaps in azimuthal coverage are present (i.e. the profile was too straight). With current acquisition capabilities, cross-spreads can be acquired in a cost-effective manner, yet they should be carefully planted to provide reasonable signal-to-noise ratio data, essential for 3D statics and for the orientation analysis itself.The new seismic data were acquired as a part of the REPower-CEST “Clean Energy System Transition” project, which received funding by the European Union (number 151, P5C1I2, NextGenerationEU).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207