{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023323615160349854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014577259475218659, 'mean_word_length': 5.026315789473684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coping with ambiguity in geophysical data

All geophysical datasets are to some degree ambiguous. Figure 1 is hardly necessary for geophysical readers; however, geological readers might find it informative. It illustrates that the size of a buried dense or magnetic spherical body cannot be determined solely from variations in the field values measured at the earth’s surface. From gravity data the depth to the centre and the excess mass (density contrast x volume) can be determined, but the diameter can’t be determined without knowledge of the density, and vice versa. Consequently, the depth to the top of such a feature, needed to optimize drillhole design, would remain unknown.