MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051157173 · doi:10.1029/00eo00213

Complex faulting confounds earthquake research in the Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Quebec

2000· article· en· W2051157173 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maurice Lamontagne, Pierre Keating, Thierry Toutin

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraplate earthquakeSeismologyGeologyFault (geology)PrecambrianSeismic zoneSeismic gapInterplate earthquakeTectonicsInduced seismicityPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following every earthquake felt in eastern North America, journalists ask the eternal question, “Which fault is responsible for this earthquake?” In intraplate environments,such as the Charlevoix Seismic Zone (CSZ), Quebec, Canada, a definite answer seldom exists. Seismologists face major difficulties: most earthquakes occur at mid‐crustal depths, the Precambrian basement where most earthquakes occur is geologically complex, and fault locations are poorly known. Fortunately, seismologists receive help from other geoscientific fields and exploration techniques, most notably remote sensing, seismic methods, and potential fields. The integration of these geophysical tools is helping us to better understand the earthquake‐fault connection in the CSZ, which is eastern Canada's most seismically active zone. Most microearthquakes— the type that occur frequently in the CSZ—occur within highly fractured blocks bounded by regional geological faults. Our interpretation is different from the common assumption that earthquakes, independent of their size, occur along regional faults.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207