MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114750030 · doi:10.1785/gssrl.79.3.457

The 2006-2007 Earthquake Sequence at Bar Harbor, Maine

2008· article· en· W2114750030 on OpenAlex
John E. Ebel, A. M. Moulis, Bruce D. Smith, M. T. Hagerty

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsSequence (biology)Bar (unit)GeologySeismologyOceanographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT One purpose of monitoring earthquake activity in northeastern North America is to discover which geologic structures are seismically active in this region. If seismically active structures can be found, they can be studied to decipher their seismic history and their potential for strong earthquakes. No seismically active geologic structures have yet been confirmed in the northeastern United States (Ebel and Kafka 1991). The only earthquake with observed surface faulting in northeastern North America took place in the Ungava Peninsula of northern Quebec in 1989 (Adams et al. 1991). Other than some minor offsets of glacial striations (Oliver et al. 1970), no geologic evidence of Holocene surface faulting in the northeastern United States has been reported in the literature. Furthermore, the seismicity that has been detected by modern regional seismic networks in the northeastern United States does not align convincingly along known or suspected geologic structures. Nevertheless, the persistence of small-earthquake activity over time and the historic occurrences of past damaging earthquakes ( e.g. , Ebel 1996; Ebel 2000; Ebel et al. 2000; Ebel 2006) indicate that there must be some seismically active structures in the region that are capable of hosting earthquakes above magnitude 6.0. Because such earthquakes are capable of causing significant damage, there is great incentive to learn which structures are seismically active in this heavily populated region. Between fall 2006 and spring 2007, a sequence of earthquakes took place near the town of Bar Harbor on Mount Desert Island on the coast of Maine ([figure 1][1]). The largest earthquake in the sequence was Lg-magnitude (MLg) 4.2. It caused several rock falls in Acadia National Park near Bar Harbor, forcing the closure of several hiking trails and one road (figures [2][2] and [3][3]; ). Acadia National Park has many steep (almost vertical) rock faces of jointed granite, and some rockslides occur annually due to weathering effects. In this earthquake sequence, only the largest of the events generated sufficiently strong ground motions to generate rock falls of the unstable slopes. A water well at McFarland Hill near Bar Harbor that was being monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey showed an unusual drop in water level of about 2 m immediately following this event (the water level data can be accessed through the Web site ). The MLg 4.2 earthquake was felt over the southern two-thirds of Maine with a few felt reports from New Hampshire (see the community Internet intensity map at [http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ne/STORE/Xtib1\_06/ciim\_display.html][4]) and was the largest event centered in Maine since 1988. A total of 38 earthquakes were detected by seismic stations at regional distances from the Bar Harbor area from the start of the sequence on 22 September 2006 until the end of 2006. Two more events were detected in the spring of 2007. The purpose of this paper is to report on an analysis of the relative locations of the Bar Harbor earthquakes detected by the regional seismic network and to use the results of that analysis to assess what geologic structure might have been seismically active in this earthquake sequence. [1]: #F1 [2]: #F2 [3]: #F3 [4]: http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/shake/ne/STORE/Xtib1_06/ciim_display.html

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.201 · 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