Advanced modelling of time domain electromagnetic data with updated hydrogeological interpretations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several countries have acquired, over the past decades, large amounts of area covering Airborne Electromagnetic data. Contribution of airborne geophysics has dramatically increased for both groundwater resource mapping and management proving how those systems are appropriate for large-scale and efficient groundwater surveying. We start with processing and inversion of two AEM dataset from two different systems collected over the Spiritwood Valley Aquifer area, Manitoba, Canada respectively, the AeroTEM III (commissioned by the Geological Survey of Canada in 2010) and the “Full waveform VTEM” dataset, collected and tested over the same survey area, during the fall 2011. We demonstrate that in the presence of multiple datasets, either AEM and ground data, due processing, inversion, post-processing, data integration and data calibration is the proper approach capable of providing reliable and consistent resistivity models. Our approach can be of interest to many end users, ranging from Geological Surveys, Universities to Private Companies, which are often proprietary of large geophysical databases to be interpreted for geological and\or hydrogeological purposes. In this study we deeply investigate the role of integration of several complimentary types of geophysical data collected over the same survey area. We show that data integration can improve inversions, reduce ambiguity and deliver high resolution results. We further attempt to use the final, most reliable output resistivity models as a solid basis for building a knowledge-driven 3D geological voxel-based model. A voxel approach allows a quantitative understanding of the hydrogeological setting of the area, and it can be further used to estimate the aquifers volumes (i.e. potential amount of groundwater resources) as well as hydrogeological flow model prediction. In addition, we investigated the impact of an AEM dataset towards hydrogeological mapping and 3D hydrogeological modeling, comparing it to having only a ground based TEM dataset and\or to having only boreholes data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".