Semiautomated tremor detection using a combined cross‐correlation and neural network approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite observations of tectonic tremor in many locations around the globe, the emergent phase arrivals, low‐amplitude waveforms, and variable event durations make automatic detection a nontrivial task. In this study, we employ a new method to identify tremor in large data sets using a semiautomated technique. The method first reduces the data volume with an envelope cross‐correlation technique, followed by a Self‐Organizing Map (SOM) algorithm to identify and classify event types. The method detects tremor in an automated fashion after calibrating for a specific data set, hence we refer to it as being “semiautomated”. We apply the semiautomated detection algorithm to a newly acquired data set of waveforms from a temporary deployment of 13 seismometers near Cholame, California, from May 2010 to July 2011. We manually identify tremor events in a 3 week long test data set and compare to the SOM output and find a detection accuracy of 79.5%. Detection accuracy improves with increasing signal‐to‐noise ratios and number of available stations. We find detection completeness of 96% for tremor events with signal‐to‐noise ratios above 3 and optimal results when data from at least 10 stations are available. We compare the SOM algorithm to the envelope correlation method of Wech and Creager and find the SOM performs significantly better, at least for the data set examined here. Using the SOM algorithm, we detect 2606 tremor events with a cumulative signal duration of nearly 55 h during the 13 month deployment. Overall, the SOM algorithm is shown to be a flexible new method that utilizes characteristics of the waveforms to identify tremor from noise or other seismic signals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".