MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025143120 · doi:10.1785/0120090197

Ground Motions Underground Compared to Those on the Surface: A Case Study from Sudbury, Ontario

2010· article· en· W2025143120 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G. M. Atkinson, N. Kraeva

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNuclear Waste Management Organization
KeywordsGeologySurface (topology)Mining engineeringSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringGeodesyGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compare signals recorded on hard-rock seismographic stations in Sudbury, Ontario, to those recorded in caverns below the surface stations, in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Signals from shallow local events show strong apparent amplification of ground motion observed on the surface relative to those recorded at depths of 1.4–2.1 km; the amplification peaks near 2.1 Hz, where it is on average a factor of 3 to 5. The peak narrows, decreases in amplitude, and shifts toward lower frequencies (0.8–1 Hz) for regional and teleseismic events. The peak in apparent amplification for the local events is attributed to a strong Rg phase from shallow events at close distances. The frequency shift and decay of the amplitude of this peak for more distant events reflects the rapidly-diminishing influence of the higher-frequency components of this phase with distance, coupled with the increasing importance of shear-wave phases.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207