MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093319542 · doi:10.1029/2001gl013079

Electromagnetic heterogeneity of the seismogenic region of 1962 M6.5 Northern Miyagi Earthquake, northeastern Japan

2001· article· en· W2093319542 on OpenAlexaff
Yuji Mitsuhata, Yasuo Ogawa, Masaaki Mishina, Toshio Kono, Takanobu Yokokura, Toshihiro Uchida

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarthquake Detection and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsGeologySeismologyCrustPlutonInduced seismicityResistive touchscreenConductorGeophysicsFar EastTectonicsElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetotelluric surveys were carried out to investigate the electrical resistivity structure of the seismogenic region of the 1962 Northern Miyagi Earthquake ( M 6.5) in Miyagi Prefecture, northeastern Japan. A 2‐D inversion reveals the existence of a deep conductive zone and overlying resistive zone in the upper crust. A positive aeromagnetic anomaly is also recognized above the resistive zone, which is interpreted as a buried Kitakami granitoid pluton. By comparison with the seismicity, we found that the microearthquakes occur just above the deep conductor and in the resistive zone, and that several S ‐wave reflectors are just above the deep conductor. Since the S ‐wave reflectors suggest the existence of fluid beneath them, the deep conductor can be interpreted as a fluid‐filled zone. Moreover, we suggest that the seepage of the fluid from the conductive fluid‐filled zone to the resistive granitoid pluton can become a trigger of the earthquakes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations61
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicEarthquake Detection and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207