MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079654931 · doi:10.1190/tle31121438.1

The potential for induced seismicity in energy technologies

2012· article· en· W2079654931 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Shemeta, Elizabeth A. Eide, Murray W. Hitzman, Donald D. Clarke, Emmanuel Detournay, James H. Dieterich, David K. Dillon, Sidney J. Green, Robert M. Habiger, Robin K. McGuire, James K. Mitchell, John L. Smith, Jason R. Ortego, Courtney R. Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDillon Consulting
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityMagnitude (astronomy)SeismologyGeologyRange (aeronautics)Earthquake magnitudeNatural (archaeology)Maximum magnitudeSeismic energyEngineeringPhysicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The great majority of earthquakes that occur each year around the world have natural causes. A small number of lesser-magnitude seismic events have been related to human activities and are called “induced seismic events” or “induced earthquakes” (NRC, 2012). Of concern are induced events that are large enough to be noticed by the public, typically events larger than magnitude 3 (note the range earthquake sizes that are felt can widely vary depending on project location and site characteristics). Induced seismic activity has been described since at least the 1920s and attributed to various human activities including the impoundment of water reservoirs, controlled explosions related to mining and construction, underground nuclear tests, and energy technology developments that involve injection or withdrawal of fluids from the subsurface. Historically known induced seismicity has generally been small in both magnitude and intensity of ground shaking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207