z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Interpreter Sam
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the leading edge
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.498
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1938-3789
pISSN - 1070-485X
DOI - 10.1190/tle36020192.1
Subject(s) - interpreter , quality (philosophy) , interpretation (philosophy) , computer science , fidelity , event (particle physics) , data quality , schedule , engineering , operations management , telecommunications , metric (unit) , philosophy , physics , epistemology , quantum mechanics , programming language , operating system
As a seasoned interpreter, Sam often has been asked to evaluate the quality of seismic data and interpretations based on those data; interestingly enough, he has not been asked for his opinion on the range of possible meanings for the word “quality.” When discussing seismic data quality, he employs a system of three quality elements that he learned from Mike Schoenberger, SEG past president and continuing education course instructor. The three elements are: detection (signal/noise), resolution, and image fidelity (event focusing and positioning). This system has served Sam well, although he can't say that everyone has always agreed with his assessment of data quality. Matters become geometrically more complicated when evaluating the quality of an interpretation because so many intangibles, such as the experience and temperament of the interpreter, as well as business factors, such as project objectives and schedule, workstation resources, and the phase of the moon, come into play. For today, we're not going to run the gauntlet of assessing interpretation quality.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom