MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411717561 · doi:10.31223/x5d15c

Multi-component Rayleigh wave dispersion analysis for Vs-depth profiling of Glaciers

2025· preprint· en· W4411717561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samara Garvey, Matthew R. Siegfried, Jeffrey Shragge, Lucas Zoet, Dougal Hansen, Nathan T. Stevens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacierProfiling (computer programming)Dispersion (optics)Rayleigh scatteringRayleigh waveGeologySurface waveGeomorphologyOpticsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic ice velocity estimates provide quantitative constraints on glacial systems including ice thickness, englacial structure, and bedrock topography. Detailed velocity modeling using active-source seismic surveys on glaciers, however, is often challenged by sub-optimal survey acquisition design due to complex field logistics. This study explores new potential of such surveys for characterizing potentially heterogeneous seismic ice velocities by leveraging dispersive Rayleigh-wave responses recorded on three-component (3-C) receivers. We use synthetic models to study survey design, data conditioning, and improvements provided by multi-component data for dispersion analysis that inform estimates of vertical velocity profiles. We employ these learnings to optimize the accuracy of dispersion curves derived from a limited aperture, 3-C dataset acquired on the Saskatchewan Glacier in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Our experiments suggest that when working with a limited number of geophones practitioners should: prioritize array length over finer receiver spacing; use shot points to infill receiver gaps; preprocess shot gather data to emphasize Rayleigh waves; and use supergathers to enhance signal-to-noise ratio and extend effective array aperture prior to building dispersion panels. Finally, we extract novel value from 3-C dispersion analysis by combining vertical- and horizontal-displacement data to reduce uncertainty and improve picked dispersion curve accuracy.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207