MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973109447 · doi:10.1029/2010jb007626

Spatiotemporal correlations of aftershock sequences

2010· article· en· W1973109447 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftershockSequence (biology)Spatial distributionDistribution (mathematics)Event (particle physics)Stochastic modelling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aftershock sequences are of particular interest in seismic research because they may condition seismic activity in a given region over long time spans. Although they are typically identified with periods of enhanced seismic activity after a large earthquake as characterized by the Omori law, our knowledge of the spatiotemporal correlations between events in an aftershock sequence is limited. Here, we study the spatiotemporal correlations of two aftershock sequences form California (Parkfield and Hector Mine) using the recently introduced concept of “recurrent” events. We find that both sequences have very similar properties and that most of them are captured by the space‐time epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model if one takes into account catalog incompleteness. However, the stochastic ETAS model does not capture those spatiotemporal correlations that give rise to the observed distribution of recurrent events on small spatial scales. We also find that there is no clear evidence for stress shadows that have been observed for smaller earthquakes.

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)0.007
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→