MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414268412 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.70080

Forward Modelling of Electrical Resistivity and Induced Polarization Using the Spectral‐Infinite‐Element Method

2025· article· en· W4414268412 on OpenAlexafffund
Kiana Damavandi, Hom Nath Gharti

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiscretizationHydrogeologyRobustness (evolution)Quadrature (astronomy)Interpolation (computer graphics)Electrical resistivity and conductivityBoundary value problemRegional geologyMagnetotelluricsEnvironmental geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Accurate and efficient modelling of subsurface electrical properties is critical for a wide range of applications, including mineral exploration, environmental studies and hydrogeological investigations. Traditional numerical approaches often use low‐order discretization and impose artificial boundary conditions to approximate the unbounded spatial domain. These approximations can lead to inaccuracies and computational inefficiency, particularly in geologically complex environments. In this study, we present a spectral‐infinite‐element method (SIEM) for forward modelling of electrical resistivity and induced polarization. The approach couples high‐order spectral elements within the finite domain with a single outer layer of mapped infinite elements, enabling precise representation of far‐field boundary conditions. To achieve optimal numerical performance, we employ two distinct quadrature schemes: Gauss–Legendre–Lobatto quadrature for the spectral elements and Gauss–Radau quadrature for the infinite elements. We first verify the accuracy of our method by comparing the computed electric potential from a buried charged block with direct numerical integration. We conducted a convergence study by refining the mesh and increasing the order of the interpolation polynomials. To further evaluate the robustness of SIEM, we benchmark its results for a layered earth model against an analytical solution and an open‐source Python‐based geophysical modelling library, SimPEG. The comparisons demonstrate the accuracy, convergence and efficiency of SIEM. Finally, we apply SIEM to a complex heterogeneous conductivity model incorporating topography, generating apparent resistivity and chargeability pseudo‐sections to illustrate its practical applicability under realistic survey conditions.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207