How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection
<p>The characterisation of natural fracture networks using outcrop analogues is important in understanding subsurface fluid flow and rock mass characteristics in fractured lithologies. It is well known from decision sciences that subjective bias can significantly impact the way data are gather...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2019-04-01
|
| Series: | Solid Earth |
| Online Access: | https://www.solid-earth.net/10/487/2019/se-10-487-2019.pdf |
| id |
doaj-72b712e7dce244f8aca34f51249ddf33 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| spelling |
doaj-72b712e7dce244f8aca34f51249ddf332020-11-25T01:56:33ZengCopernicus PublicationsSolid Earth1869-95101869-95292019-04-011048751610.5194/se-10-487-2019How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collectionB. J. Andrews0J. J. Roberts1Z. K. Shipton2S. Bigi3M. C. Tartarello4G. Johnson5G. Johnson6Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G11XJ, ScotlandDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G11XJ, ScotlandDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G11XJ, ScotlandDepartment of Earth Science, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro, 5, 00185 Rome, ItalyDepartment of Earth Science, Sapienza University of Rome, P.le Aldo Moro, 5, 00185 Rome, ItalyDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G11XJ, ScotlandSchool of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH93FE, Scotland<p>The characterisation of natural fracture networks using outcrop analogues is important in understanding subsurface fluid flow and rock mass characteristics in fractured lithologies. It is well known from decision sciences that subjective bias can significantly impact the way data are gathered and interpreted, introducing scientific uncertainty. This study investigates the scale and nature of subjective bias on fracture data collected using four commonly applied approaches (linear scanlines, circular scanlines, topology sampling, and window sampling) both in the field and in workshops using field photographs. We demonstrate that geologists' own subjective biases influence the data they collect, and, as a result, different participants collect different fracture data from the same scanline or sample area. As a result, the fracture statistics that are derived from field data can vary considerably for the same scanline, depending on which geologist collected the data. Additionally, the personal bias of geologists collecting the data affects the scanline size (minimum length of linear scanlines, radius of circular scanlines, or area of a window sample) needed to collect a statistically representative amount of data. Fracture statistics derived from field data are often input into geological models that are used for a range of applications, from understanding fluid flow to characterising rock strength. We suggest protocols to recognise, understand, and limit the effect of subjective bias on fracture data biases during data collection. Our work shows the capacity for cognitive biases to introduce uncertainty into observation-based data and has implications well beyond the geosciences.</p>https://www.solid-earth.net/10/487/2019/se-10-487-2019.pdf |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
B. J. Andrews J. J. Roberts Z. K. Shipton S. Bigi M. C. Tartarello G. Johnson G. Johnson |
| spellingShingle |
B. J. Andrews J. J. Roberts Z. K. Shipton S. Bigi M. C. Tartarello G. Johnson G. Johnson How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection Solid Earth |
| author_facet |
B. J. Andrews J. J. Roberts Z. K. Shipton S. Bigi M. C. Tartarello G. Johnson G. Johnson |
| author_sort |
B. J. Andrews |
| title |
How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| title_short |
How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| title_full |
How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| title_fullStr |
How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| title_full_unstemmed |
How do we see fractures? Quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| title_sort |
how do we see fractures? quantifying subjective bias in fracture data collection |
| publisher |
Copernicus Publications |
| series |
Solid Earth |
| issn |
1869-9510 1869-9529 |
| publishDate |
2019-04-01 |
| description |
<p>The characterisation of natural fracture networks using
outcrop analogues is important in understanding subsurface fluid flow and
rock mass characteristics in fractured lithologies. It is well known from
decision sciences that subjective bias can significantly impact the way data
are gathered and interpreted, introducing scientific uncertainty. This study
investigates the scale and nature of subjective bias on fracture data
collected using four commonly applied approaches (linear scanlines, circular
scanlines, topology sampling, and window sampling) both in the field and in
workshops using field photographs. We demonstrate that geologists' own
subjective biases influence the data they collect, and, as a result,
different participants collect different fracture data from the same
scanline or sample area. As a result, the fracture statistics that are
derived from field data can vary considerably for the same scanline,
depending on which geologist collected the data. Additionally, the personal
bias of geologists collecting the data affects the scanline size (minimum
length of linear scanlines, radius of circular scanlines, or area of a window
sample) needed to collect a statistically representative amount of data.
Fracture statistics derived from field data are often input into geological
models that are used for a range of applications, from understanding fluid
flow to characterising rock strength. We suggest protocols to recognise,
understand, and limit the effect of subjective bias on fracture data biases
during data collection. Our work shows the capacity for cognitive biases to
introduce uncertainty into observation-based data and has implications well
beyond the geosciences.</p> |
| url |
https://www.solid-earth.net/10/487/2019/se-10-487-2019.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT bjandrews howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT jjroberts howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT zkshipton howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT sbigi howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT mctartarello howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT gjohnson howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection AT gjohnson howdoweseefracturesquantifyingsubjectivebiasinfracturedatacollection |
| _version_ |
1724979394851635200 |