MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037169338

Cross borehole electromagnetic tomography : scoping study and literature review

2005· other· en· W7037169338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilDepartment for International DevelopmentBritish Geological Survey
KeywordsElectrical resistivity tomographyBoreholeTomographyResistive touchscreenElectromagnetic fieldElectromagnetic radiation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-borehole electromagnetic tomography is a non-contact geophysical method that can be used to generate images of the electrical properties of the subsurface. It is rather underutilised for site-scale investigation, due to the broad range of frequencies over which it must respond and the complicated nature of the electromagnetic fields in this range. However, such a system would find applications in a wide variety of environments, from fracture characterisation in highly resistive crystalline rock to pollution monitoring in conductive landfills. There is currently a gap in the European market for this type of tomography, despite the fact that it is in use and subject to on-going development in Canada, the U.S. and Australia. This report reviews the literature relevant to a cross-hole electromagnetic tomography imaging system and makes recommendations on its design and implementation.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0580.054
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council)French-language works237,207