Tidal calibration of plate boundary observatory borehole strainmeters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Plate Boundary Observatory, the geodetic component of the EarthScope program, includes 74 borehole strainmeters installed in the western United States and on Vancouver Island, Canada. In this study, we calibrate 45 of the instruments by comparing the observed M 2 and O 1 Earth tides with those predicted using Earth tide models. For each strainmeter, we invert for a coupling matrix that relates the gauge measurements to the regional strain field assuming only that the measured strains are linear combinations of the regional areal and shear strains. We compare these matrices to those found when constraints are imposed which require the coupling coefficients to lie within expected ranges for this strainmeter design. Similar unconstrained and constrained coupling matrices suggest the instrument is functioning as expected as no other coupling matrix can be found that better reduces the misfit between observed and predicted tides when the inversion is unconstrained. Differences imply a coupling matrix with coefficients outside typical ranges gives a better fit between the observed and predicted tides. We find that 22 of the strainmeters examined have coupling matrices for which there is little difference between the constrained and unconstrained inversions. If we allow a greater divergence in the shear coupling coefficients and consider the possibility that one gauge may not function as expected, the discrepancies between the unconstrained and constrained coupling matrices are resolved for a subset of the remaining strainmeters. Our results also indicate that most of the strainmeters are less sensitive to areal strain than expected from theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".