MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586209620 · doi:10.1002/grl.50220

Tremors along the Queen Charlotte Margin triggered by large teleseismic earthquakes

2013· article· en· W1586209620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chastity Aiken, Zhigang Peng, Kevin Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsSeismologyGeologyEpicenterRayleigh waveThrust faultAmplitudeTectonicsFault (geology)Queen (butterfly)GeodesySurface wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We conduct a systematic search of tectonic tremors along the Queen Charlotte Margin (QCM) in western Canada triggered by distant earthquakes. We identify triggered tremor as non‐impulsive, high‐frequency signals coherent among several stations and coincident with passing surface waves. So far, the 2002 M w 7.9 Denali Fault, the 2004 M w 9.2 Sumatra, and the 2011 M w 9.1 Tohoku‐Oki earthquakes have triggered clear tremor in this region. The 2010 M w 8.8 Maule, Chile and the 2012 M w 8.6 Sumatra earthquakes may have triggered, but tremors in these two cases did not meet all of our criteria. The triggered tremors are mostly located east of the Queen Charlotte Fault in the southern portion of Haida Gwaii, near the epicenter of the 28 October 2012 M w 7.7 earthquake. Similar to the observations in other regions, the triggered tremors were initiated by the Love waves and continued during the subsequent Rayleigh waves. Tremor bursts correlate with both the particle velocity and displacement of the Love waves, indicating they are triggered at either low‐angle thrust or vertical strike‐slip faults. In addition, we find that the triggering potential for the QCM is controlled by a combination of amplitude, period, and incident angles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207