Investigation of regional seismicity before and after hydraulic fracturing in the Horn River Basin, northeast British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We systematically re-analyzed historical seismograms to verify the existence of background seismicity in the Horn River Basin of northeast British Columbia before the start of regional shale gas development. We also carefully relocated local earthquakes that occurred between December 2006 and December 2011 to delineate their spatiotemporal relationship with hydraulic fracturing (HF) operations in the region. Scattered seismic events were detected in the Horn River Basin throughout the study periods. The located seismicity within 100 km of the Fort Nelson seismic station had a clearly increasing trend, specifically in the Etsho area where most local HF operations were performed. The number of events was increased from 24 in 2002–2003 (prior to HF operations) to 131 in 2011 (peak period of HF operations). In addition, maximum magnitude of the events was shifted from ML 2.9 to ML 3.6 as the scale of HF operation expanded from 2006–2007 to 2011. Based on our relocated earthquake catalog, the overall b value is estimated at 1.21, which is higher than the average of tectonic/natural earthquakes of ∼1.0. Our observations highly support the likelihood of a physical relationship between HF operation and induced seismicity in the Horn River Basin. Unfortunately, due to the sparse station density in the region, depth resolution is poor for the vast majority of events in our study area. As new seismograph stations are established in northeast British Columbia, both epicentral mislocation and depth uncertainty for future events are expected to improve significantly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".