MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603372043 · doi:10.1002/2015gl064363

Low‐frequency earthquakes at the southern Cascadia margin

2015· article· en· W1603372043 on OpenAlexaff
A. P. Plourde, M. G. Bostock, Pascal Audet, Amanda M. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologySan andreas faultEpisodic tremor and slipSlip (aerodynamics)Fault (geology)SubductionTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use seismic waveform data from the Mendocino Experiment to detect low‐frequency earthquakes (LFEs) beneath Northern California during the April 2008 tremor‐and‐slip episode. In southern Cascadia, 59 templates were generated using iterative network cross correlation and stacking and grouped into 34 distinct LFE families. The main front of tremor epicenters migrates along strike at 9 km d −1 ; we also find one instance of rapid tremor reversal, observed to propagate in the opposite direction at 10–20 km h −1 . As in other regions of Cascadia, LFE hypocenters from this study lie several kilometers above a recent plate interface model. South of Cascadia, LFEs were discovered on the Maacama and Bucknell Creek faults. The Bucknell Creek Fault may be the youngest fault yet observed to host LFEs. These fault zones also host shallow earthquake swarms with repeating events that are distinct from LFEs in their spectral and recurrence characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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