What do you think this is?

"Conceptual uncertainty" In geoscience interpretation

Clare Elizabeth Bond, Alan D Gibbs, Zoe K Shipton, Serena Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

163 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Interpretations of seismic hinages are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the "conceptual uncertainty" inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the "correct" tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These re ts illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4-10
Number of pages7
JournalGSA Today
Volume17
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2007

Fingerprint

data interpretation
tectonic setting
seismic data
geology
resource
experiment
decision
effect
risk analysis

Cite this

What do you think this is? "Conceptual uncertainty" In geoscience interpretation. / Bond, Clare Elizabeth; Gibbs, Alan D; Shipton, Zoe K; Jones, Serena.

In: GSA Today, Vol. 17, No. 11, 12.2007, p. 4-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bond, Clare Elizabeth ; Gibbs, Alan D ; Shipton, Zoe K ; Jones, Serena. / What do you think this is? "Conceptual uncertainty" In geoscience interpretation. In: GSA Today. 2007 ; Vol. 17, No. 11. pp. 4-10.
@article{918a2490c6794baa879e467c3bae5667,
title = "What do you think this is?: {"}Conceptual uncertainty{"} In geoscience interpretation",
abstract = "Interpretations of seismic hinages are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the {"}conceptual uncertainty{"} inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21{\%} of the participants interpreted the {"}correct{"} tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23{\%} highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These re ts illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.",
author = "Bond, {Clare Elizabeth} and Gibbs, {Alan D} and Shipton, {Zoe K} and Serena Jones",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1130/GSAT01711A.1",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "4--10",
journal = "GSA Today",
issn = "1052-5173",
publisher = "Geological Society of America",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What do you think this is?

T2 - "Conceptual uncertainty" In geoscience interpretation

AU - Bond, Clare Elizabeth

AU - Gibbs, Alan D

AU - Shipton, Zoe K

AU - Jones, Serena

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - Interpretations of seismic hinages are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the "conceptual uncertainty" inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the "correct" tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These re ts illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.

AB - Interpretations of seismic hinages are used to analyze subsurface geology and form the basis for many exploration and extraction decisions, but the uncertainty that arises from human bias in seismic data interpretation has not previously been quantified. All geological data sets are spatially limited and have limited resolution. Geoscientists who interpret such data sets must, therefore, rely upon their previous experience and apply a limited set of geological concepts. We have documented the range of interpretations to a single data set, and in doing so have quantified the "conceptual uncertainty" inherent in seismic interpretation. In this experiment, 412 interpretations of a synthetic seismic image were analyzed. Only 21% of the participants interpreted the "correct" tectonic setting of the original model, and only 23% highlighted the three main fault strands in the image. These re ts illustrate that conceptual uncertainty exists, which in turn explains the large range of interpretations that can result from a single data set. We consider the role of prior knowledge in biasing individuals in their interpretation of the synthetic seismic section, and our results demonstrate that conceptual uncertainty has a critical influence on resource exploration and other areas of geoscience. Practices should be developed to minimize the effects of conceptual uncertainty, and it should be accounted for in risk analysis.

U2 - 10.1130/GSAT01711A.1

DO - 10.1130/GSAT01711A.1

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 4

EP - 10

JO - GSA Today

JF - GSA Today

SN - 1052-5173

IS - 11

ER -