MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412493990 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327738

Automated identification of sedimentary structures in core images using object detection algorithms

2025· article· en· W4412493990 on OpenAlexaff
Ammar Abdlmutalib, Korhan Ayrancı, Umair bin Waheed, Hamad D Alhajri, James A. MacEachern, Mohammed N Al-Khabbaz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkIdentification (biology)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceSiliciclasticInferencePattern recognition (psychology)Software portabilityCore (optical fiber)Sedimentary rockGeologyFaciesAlgorithmPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manual interpretation of sedimentary structures in core-based analyses is critical for understanding subsurface geology but remains time-intensive, expert-dependent, and susceptible to bias. This study investigates the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to automate structure identification in core images, focusing on siliciclastic deposits from deltaic, shoreface, fluvial, and lacustrine environments. Two object detection models-YOLOv4 and Faster R-CNN-were trained on annotated datasets comprising 15 sedimentary structure types. YOLOv4 achieved high precision (up to 95%) with faster training and shorter inference times (3.2 s/image) compared to Faster R-CNN (2.5 s/image) under consistent batch size and hardware conditions. Although Faster R-CNN reached a higher mean average precision (94.44%), it exhibited lower recall, particularly for frequently occurring structures. Both models faced challenges in distinguishing morphologically similar features, such as mud drapes and bioturbated media. Performance declined slightly in tests involving previously unseen datasets (Split III), indicating limitations in generalization across varied core imagery. Despite these challenges, the results demonstrate the promise of deep learning for streamlining core interpretation, reducing manual effort, and enhancing reproducibility. This study establishes a robust framework for advancing automated facies analysis in sedimentological research and geoscientific applications.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→