MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022103410 · doi:10.1029/2004gl021733

Relative location of excavation induced microseismicity at the Underground Research Laboratory (AECL, Canada) using surveyed reference events

2005· article· en· W2022103410 on OpenAlexaffabout
J.M. Reyes-Montes, Andreas Rietbrock, D.S. Collins, R. P. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocenterGeologyExcavationSeismologyContext (archaeology)RelocationCoalescence (physics)Induced seismicityMagnitude (astronomy)Mining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microseismicity is extensively used to monitor induced damage accumulation and stability of underground structures. Classical location routines in this context can often not resolve the potential coalescence of the induced microcracks, since the location accuracy is on the order of magnitude of the largest fractures observed. Most of the uncertainty arises from the poor knowledge of the seismic velocity field. Master event relocation techniques can circumvent this problem and significantly improve the accuracy in hypocenter determination. We relocate events recorded during the excavation of the TSX tunnel at the Underground Research Laboratory (URL) and show that the resolution is enhanced by up to one order of magnitude. The relocated events locate closer to the excavation perimeter than the absolute locations, a result that corresponds with the observed damage. Additionally the relocated events define a clearer structure, with planes of alignment parallel to the tunnel perimeter.

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)0.001
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 score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207