MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084548800 · doi:10.1029/2005gl023974

Array measurements of deep tremor signals in the Cascadia subduction zone

2005· article· en· W2084548800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mario La Rocca, Wendy McCausland, Danilo Galluzzo, Steve Malone, Gilberto Saccorotti, Edoardo Del Pezzo

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
KeywordsSlownessSeismometerGeologySeismologyAzimuthSubductionTransverse planeSeismic waveSeismic arrayGeodesyGeophysicsOpticsPhysicsTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary analysis of deep tremor recorded during July, 2004, in the Cascadia Subduction zone shows that small aperture arrays can resolve the slowness and back azimuth of seismic waves with a useful resolution. Data were collected by three dense arrays of short‐period seismometers specifically deployed in the Puget Sound area under an US‐Italy‐Canada cooperative effort. Slowness analyses at the three arrays indicate that the 2–4 Hz tremor wave‐field is composed of waves propagating with apparent velocities higher than 4 km/s. Combining this with polarisation analysis show these waves to be transverse (SH) waves. However, P‐waves, though smaller in amplitude, can be detected by different slowness values obtained for the radial and transverse components. The intersection of wave vectors determined by the back azimuth and slowness values measured at the three arrays provides a preliminary estimate of source location for a sample of the recorded deep tremor.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.304
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 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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