Critical point theory of earthquakes: Observation of correlated and cooperative behavior on earthquake fault systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical point theory for earthquakes was originally proposed to explain the scaling relations observed in earthquakes, including the Gutenberg‐Richter frequency‐ magnitude relation and the Omori's law for aftershocks. In this model, main shocks, their foreshocks and aftershocks are all associated with the formation of a correlated, cooperative spatial region with high stress. Until now, only indirect evidence of the existence of these correlated regions has been reported. Here in this paper we present observations and analyses that allow us to directly map the high stress, spatially correlated regions preceding four major earthquakes, i.e. the 1992 Landers (California), 1995 Kobe (Japan), 1999 Chi‐Chi (Taiwan) and 1999 Hector Mine (California) earthquakes. We therefore conclude that the locations and extent of large main shocks and their immediate aftershocks can be determined from seismicity data taken prior to the main shocks, and provide additional evidence in support of the critical point theory for earthquakes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".