MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064998700 · doi:10.1785/0120000288

Apparent Source Spectra for Earthquakes in the Charlevoix Seismic Zone: A Comparison of Direct and Empirical Green's Function Methods

2001· article· en· W2064998700 on OpenAlexaff
E. Sonley

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeologySpectral lineFunction (biology)Seismic zonePhysicsInduced seismicityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two methods of determining the apparent source spectrum of ground motion are compared for small to moderate earthquakes in the Charlevoix Seismic Zone. The first of these methods uses empirical Green9s functions (EGF), in which the spectrum of a target mainshock event is divided by the spectrum of a smaller event in the same location. The EGF approach removes the path, site, and instrument effects from the recorded motion by dividing them out, leaving only the source spectrum of the mainshock. The second method estimates the Fourier spectrum of acceleration near the source directly, by dividing the recorded mainshock spectra by the transfer functions representing the effects of instrument response, attenuation (path effects), and site effects. The results of this study indicate agreement between the direct method and the EGF method. The EGF method is more limited in frequency range by the signal-to-noise ratios than is the direct method. In this study the frequency range was 0.5–10 Hz for the direct method, compared with 1.2–10 Hz for the EGF method. The apparent source spectra are generally well represented by a simple Brune point source model of the radiation. Mainshock events had moment magnitudes ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, with Brune model stress drops in the range from 1 to 80 bars.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.590
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207