MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147846751 · doi:10.1002/2014jb010940

Nontrivial decay of aftershock density with distance in Southern California

2014· article· en· W2147846751 on OpenAlexafffund
Javad Moradpour, Sebastian Hainzl, Jörn Davidsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsAftershockExponentSeismologyMagnitude (astronomy)GeologyCrustShock (circulatory)Scale (ratio)Power lawAnisotropyGeodesyPhysicsAstrophysicsGeophysicsMathematicsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The decay of the aftershock density with distance plays an important role in the discussion of the dominant underlying cause of earthquake triggering. Here, we provide evidence that its form is more complicated than typically assumed and that in particular a transition in the power law decay occurs at length scales comparable to the thickness of the crust. This is supported by an analysis of a very recent high‐resolution catalog for Southern California (SC) and surrogate catalogs generated by the Epidemic‐Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model, which take into account inhomogeneous background activity, short‐term aftershock incompleteness, anisotropic triggering, and variations in the observational magnitude threshold. Our findings indicate specifically that the asymptotic decay in the aftershock density with distance is characterized by an exponent larger than 2, which is much bigger than the observed exponent of approximately 1.35 observed for shorter distances ranging from the main shock rupture length up to a length scale comparable to the thickness of the crust. This has also important consequences for time‐dependent seismic hazard assessment based on the ETAS model.

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)0.001
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207