Delineating complex spatiotemporal distribution of earthquake aftershocks: an improved Source-Scanning Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional earthquake location methods depend critically on the correct identification of seismic phases and their arrival times from seismograms. Accurate phase picking is particularly difficult for aftershocks that occur closely in time and space, mostly because of the ambiguity of correlating the same phase at different stations. In this study, we introduce an improved Source-Scanning Algorithm (ISSA) for the purpose of delineating the complex distribution of aftershocks without time-consuming and labour-intensive phase-picking procedures. The improvements include the application of a ground motion analyser to separate P and S waves, the automatic adjustment of time windows for ‘brightness’ calculation based on the scanning resolution and a modified brightness function to combine constraints from multiple phases. Synthetic experiments simulating a challenging scenario are conducted to demonstrate the robustness of the ISSA. The method is applied to a field data set selected from the ocean-bottom-seismograph records of an offshore aftershock sequence southwest of Taiwan. Although visual inspection of the seismograms is ambiguous, our ISSA analysis clearly delineates two events that can best explain the observed waveform pattern.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".