MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073790964 · doi:10.1029/2012eo120014

Passive margin earthquakes: Reviewing knowledge and challenges

2012· article· en· W2073790964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ernie Balcerak

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraplate earthquakeMagnitude (astronomy)SeismologyGeologyMoment magnitude scaleLandslideMargin (machine learning)Continental marginEarthquake casualty estimationRemotely triggered earthquakesEarthquake swarmUrban seismic riskSeismic hazardInduced seismicityTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthquakes like the August 2011 magnitude 5.8 Mineral, Va., temblor that occur on “passive” continental margins surprise people because they expect earthquakes to occur only on plate boundaries. But, in fact, large and damaging intraplate earthquakes occur fairly regularly on passive margins around the world. For instance, in North America the magnitude ˜7 Charleston earthquake shook South Carolina in 1886, causing severe damage and about 60 deaths, and the 1929 magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland caused a tsunami, a large landslide, and 28 fatalities. Although they are fairly common, these earthquakes are not well studied, and their specific geologic settings and causes are unclear.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207