MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027397158 · doi:10.1029/2006gl027316

Observations of non‐volcanic tremor during the northern Cascadia slow‐slip event in February 2002

2006· article· en· W2027397158 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Royle, Andrew J. Calvert, Honn Kao

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpisodic tremor and slipSubductionGeologySeismologyVolcanoSlip (aerodynamics)Tectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We locate in the Cascadia subduction zone non‐volcanic tremors from an episodic tremor and slip event in February 2002. The tremors occurred during two 10‐day periods separated by a short lull. Tremors that occurred during the first period are broadly distributed between 10 km and 40 km depth at the southern end of Vancouver Island, and over a >50 km wide region measured normal to the margin. During the second period of tremor activity, most tremors were concentrated in a narrower zone, and many tremors occurred near the subduction megathrust at approximately 35 km depth. This relatively large number of tremors near the subduction megathrust is in contrast to the broad depth distribution of the subsequent March 2003 tremor sequence. The change in the pattern of tremor activity observed during the February 2002 sequence may indicate a change in the slow slip process, or in its migration along the margin.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207