MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052309796 · doi:10.1029/2006jb004516

Field relations between the spectral composition of ground motion and hydrological effects during the 1999 Chi‐Chi (Taiwan) earthquake

2007· article· en· W2052309796 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander S. Wong, Chi‐Yuen Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquefactionGroundwaterGeologySeismogramSeismologyPeak ground accelerationStrong ground motionGround motionGeodesyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility that the frequency content of ground motion in earthquakes affects hydrological responses to earthquakes has yet to be extensively tested in the field. The M w = 7.6 Chi‐Chi earthquake provided an opportunity to do so, as widespread liquefaction and groundwater level changes were recorded by instrumentation in the Choshui Alluvial Fan. Analysis of the resulting data shows that ground motion parameters that measure low‐frequency ground motions are more strongly correlated with coseismic groundwater level change and the occurrence of liquefaction than parameters that measure high‐frequency motions. Notably, horizontal peak ground acceleration, a metric often used to enumerate the strength of ground motion in liquefaction analysis, is weakly correlated with these hydrological effects. It is unclear from this analysis whether low‐frequency ground motion caused coseismic groundwater level change and liquefaction or whether the hydrological changes changed the spectral composition of the observed seismograms during the Chi‐Chi earthquake.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207