MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032344151 · doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-7897-5_12

Methods for Evaluation of Geodetic Data and Seismicity Developed with Numerical Simulations: Review and Applications

2004· book-chapter· en· W2032344151 on OpenAlexaff
K. F. Tiampo, John B. Rundle, J. S. Sá Martins, W. Klein, Seth McGinnis

Bibliographic record

VenueBirkhäuser Basel eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeodetic datumInduced seismicityComputer scienceGlobal Positioning SystemVisualizationField (mathematics)Data miningGeologySeismologyGeodesyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work we review the development of both established and innovative analytical techniques using numerical simulations of the southern California fault system and demonstrate the viability of these methods with examples using actual data. The ultimate goal of these methods is to better understand how the surface of the Earth is changing on both long-and short-term time scales, and to use the resulting information to learn about the internal processes in the underlying crust and to predict future changes in the deformation and stress field. Three examples of the analysis and visualization techniques are discussed in this paper and include the Karhunen-Loeve (KL) decomposition technique, local Ginsberg criteria (LGC) analysis, and phase dynamical probability change (PDPC). Examples of the potential results from these methods are provided through their application to data from the Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN), historic seismicity data, and simulated InSAR data, respectively. These analyses, coupled with advances in modeling and simulation, will provide the capability to track changes in deformation and stress through time, and to relate these to the development of space-time correlations and patterns.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirkhäuser Basel eBooksSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207