MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103343638 · doi:10.1029/2007rg000253

Seismic observations of meteors: Coupling theory and observations

2008· article· en· W2103343638 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Geophysics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeteoroidMeteor (satellite)GeologyGeophysicsSeismologyCoupling (piping)PhysicsMeteorologyAstrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last century, seismic instruments have recorded, with increasing frequency, the ground motion produced by meteorically generated shock waves striking the Earth's surface. In this review, the history of meteor‐related seismic signals is discussed, along with documented waveform characteristics, source mechanisms, air‐ground coupling phenomena, and kinematic methods of determining meteor trajectories and event locations. Uncertainties in the mechanics of air‐ground coupling, however, have left methods of measuring meteor source energy underdeveloped. To date, coupling of acoustic waves directly with the Earth's surface represents the bulk of the observed meteor‐related seismic signals, while precursory and impact‐related seismic waves remain an observational rarity. With proliferation of infrasound and seismic monitoring systems, new opportunities exist to explore the relationship between Earth's atmosphere and surface. Continued study of meteor seismology will lead to new methods to constrain energies, sizes, and fluxes for moderately (cm to m) sized meteoroids on Earth and potentially on Mars.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.184 · 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