MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991276707 · doi:10.1029/2004eo360004

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Coupling semantics and science in earthquake research’”]

2004· article· en· W1991276707 on OpenAlexaff
Kelin Wang, Timothy H. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)Meaning (existential)Semantics (computer science)EpistemologyTheoretical physicsComputer sciencePhilosophyPhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz for their comment on our Forum article ( Eos , 85(18),4 May 2004, p. 180). They agree with our main point that slip rates of a fault should not be confused with stress conditions or frictional properties, but they criticize our use of the word “locked” and the interseismic deformation model we used to illustrate a conceptual error. We agree with Lay and Schwartz that the term “locked” has connotations beyond purely kinematical and that “no slip” may be more appropriate. The present reply is to further discuss the meaning of the simple deformation model.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207