MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Earthquake precursors: activation or quiescence?

2011· article· en· W2112785012 on OpenAlexaff
John B. Rundle, J. R. Holliday, Mark R. Yoder, M. K. Sachs, Andrea Donnellan, Donald L. Turcotte, K. F. Tiampo, W. Klein, L. H. Kellogg

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftershockNucleationInduced seismicitySeismologyGeologyEvent (particle physics)Magnitude (astronomy)ForeshockEarthquake predictionFault (geology)Range (aeronautics)Statistical physicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the long-standing question of whether the probability for large earthquake occurrence (magnitudes m > 6.0) is highest during time periods of smaller event activation, or highest during time periods of smaller event quiescence. The physics of the activation model are based on an idea from the theory of nucleation, that a small magnitude earthquake has a finite probability of growing into a large earthquake. The physics of the quiescence model is based on the idea that the occurrence of smaller earthquakes (here considered as magnitudes m > 3.5) may be due to a mechanism such as critical slowing down, in which fluctuations in systems with long-range interactions tend to be suppressed prior to large nucleation events. To illuminate this question, we construct two end-member forecast models illustrating, respectively, activation and quiescence. The activation model assumes only that activation can occur, either via aftershock nucleation or triggering, but expresses no choice as to which mechanism is preferred. Both of these models are in fact a means of filtering the seismicity time-series to compute probabilities. Using 25 yr of data from the California–Nevada catalogue of earthquakes, we show that of the two models, activation and quiescence, the latter appears to be the better model, as judged by backtesting (by a slight but not significant margin). We then examine simulation data from a topologically realistic earthquake model for California seismicity, Virtual California. This model includes not only earthquakes produced from increases in stress on the fault system, but also background and off-fault seismicity produced by a BASS–ETAS driving mechanism. Applying the activation and quiescence forecast models to the simulated data, we come to the opposite conclusion. Here, the activation forecast model is preferred to the quiescence model, presumably due to the fact that the BASS component of the model is essentially a model for activated seismicity. These results lead to the (weak) conclusion that California seismicity may be characterized more by quiescence than by activation, and that BASS–ETAS models may not be robustly applicable to the real data.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207