MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044214021 · doi:10.1134/s106273914905002x

Low-magnitude seismicity monitoring in rocks

2013· article· en· W2044214021 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mining Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnitude (astronomy)Induced seismicityGeologySeismologyBauxite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors calculate possible errors in characterization of low-magnitude seismicity sources using the Brune model and methods of identification of seismic event energy class and local magnitude. The adequacy of the model has been proved by comparing its results with the recordings of seismic vibrations in the North Ural Bauxite Mine. The errors due to the drastic distortion of the emission spectrum become significant at the distance of 1000 m from the emission source and grow as the distance increases. Cases of great deviations from the similarity law are analyzed based on the actual seismic monitoring in the North Ural Bauxite Mine, in mines in Poland, Finland and Canada, as well as in water basins. It is shown that phenomena due to physical difference of various size fracturing dynamics do not radically change a seismic source capacity. Other causes, due to instrumentation shortcomings or incorrect data interpretation, may result in overestimated seismic energy and scaling-up of low-magnitude seismic events.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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