MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057431298 · doi:10.1029/2003gl018014

Source model for the M<sub><i>w</i></sub> 6.7, 23 October 2002, Nenana Mountain Earthquake (Alaska) from InSAR

2003· article· en· W2057431298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Wright, Zhong Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypocenterGeologySeismologyInterferometric synthetic aperture radarCrustGeodesySlip (aerodynamics)Source modelSynthetic aperture radarInduced seismicityGeophysicsRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 23 October 2002 Nenana Mountain Earthquake (M w ∼ 6.7) occurred on the Denali Fault (Alaska), to the west of the M w ∼ 7.9 Denali Earthquake that ruptured the same fault 11 days later. We used 6 interferograms, constructed using radar images from the Canadian Radarsat‐1 and European ERS‐2 satellites, to determine the coseismic surface deformation and a source model. Data were acquired on ascending and descending satellite passes, with incidence angles between 23 and 45 degrees, and time intervals of 72 days or less. Modeling the event as dislocations in an elastic half space suggests that there was nearly 0.9 m of right‐lateral strike‐slip motion at depth, on a near‐vertical fault, and that the maximum slip in the top 4 km of crust was less than 0.2 m. The Nenana Mountain Earthquake increased the Coulomb stress at the future hypocenter of the 3 November 2002, Denali Earthquake by 30–60 kPa.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations209
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207