A tri-stage cluster identification model for accurate analysis of seismic catalogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this paper we propose a tri-stage cluster identification model that is a combination of a simple single iteration distance algorithm and an iterative K-means algorithm. In this study of earthquake seismicity, the model considers event location, time and magnitude information from earthquake catalog data to efficiently classify events as either background or mainshock and aftershock sequences. Tests on a synthetic seismicity catalog demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed model in terms of accuracy percentage (94.81% for background and 89.46% for aftershocks). The close agreement between lambda and cumulative plots for the ideal synthetic catalog and that generated by the proposed model also supports the accuracy of the proposed technique. There is flexibility in the model design to allow for proper selection of location and magnitude ranges, depending upon the nature of the mainshocks present in the catalog. The effectiveness of the proposed model also is evaluated by the classification of events in three historic catalogs: California, Japan and Indonesia. As expected, for both synthetic and historic catalog analysis it is observed that the density of events classified as background is almost uniform throughout the region, whereas the density of aftershock events are higher near the mainshocks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".