MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combining double-difference relocation with regional depth-phase modelling to improve hypocentre accuracy

2011· article· en· W1947572410 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shutian Ma, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationGeologyEarthquake locationSeismologyInduced seismicitySeismic hazardGeodesyTectonicsFocal mechanismComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise and accurate earthquake hypocentres are critical for various fields, such as the study of tectonic process and seismic-hazard assessment. Double-difference relocation methods are widely used and can dramatically improve the precision of event relative locations. In areas of sparse seismic network coverage, however, a significant trade-off exists between focal depth, epicentral location and the origin time. Regional depth-phase modelling (RDPM) is suitable for sparse networks and can provide focal-depth information that is relatively insensitive to uncertainties in epicentral location and independent of errors in the origin time. Here, we propose a hybrid method in which focal depth is determined using RDPM and then treated as a fixed parameter in subsequent double-difference calculations, thus reducing the size of the system of equations and increasing the precision of the hypocentral solutions. Based on examples using small earthquakes from eastern Canada and southwestern USA, we show that the application of this technique yields solutions that appear to be more robust and accurate than those obtained by standard double-difference relocation method alone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207