MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008095626 · doi:10.1029/2007jb005248

Broadband ambient noise surface wave tomography across the United States

2008· article· en· W2008095626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. D. Bensen, M. H. Ritzwoller, Н. М. Шапиро

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRayleigh waveGeologySeismologyAmbient noise levelSurface waveSeismic noiseDispersion (optics)Rayleigh scatteringAzimuthCrustPhase velocityLove waveGroup velocityNoise (video)GeodesyGeophysicsWave propagationOpticsPhysicsLongitudinal waveGeomorphologyMechanical wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents surface wave dispersion maps across the contiguous United States determined using seismic ambient noise. Two years of ambient noise data are used from March 2003 through February 2005 observed at 203 broadband seismic stations in the US, southern Canada, and northern Mexico. Cross‐correlations are computed between all station‐pairs to produce empirical Green functions. At most azimuths across the US, coherent Rayleigh wave signals exist in the empirical Green functions implying that ambient noise in the frequency band of this study (5–100 s period) is sufficiently isotropically distributed in azimuth to yield largely unbiased dispersion measurements. Rayleigh and Love wave group and phase velocity curves are measured together with associated uncertainties determined from the temporal variability of the measurements. A sufficient number of measurements (>2000) is obtained between 8 and 25 s period for Love waves and 8 and 70 s period for Rayleigh waves to produce tomographic dispersion maps. Both phase and group velocity maps are presented in these period bands. Resolution is estimated to be better than 100 km across much of the US from 8–40 s period for Rayleigh waves and 8–20 s period for Love waves, which is unprecedented in a study at this spatial scale. At longer and shorter periods, resolution degrades as the number of coherent signals diminishes. The dispersion maps agree well with each other and with known geological and tectonic features and, in addition, provide new information about structures in the crust and uppermost mantle beneath much of the US.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations311
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207