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

Seismic observations of meteors: Coupling theory and observations

2008· article· en· W2103343638 on OpenAlexaff
W. N. Edwards, David W. Eaton, Peter Brown

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of GeophysicsSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207