Variation of Source‐to‐Site Distance for Megathrust Subduction Earthquakes: Effects on Ground Motion Prediction Equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of using different finite‐fault source models in evaluating rupture distances for megathrust subduction earthquakes. The uncertainty of the calculated rupture distances affects interpretation of the recorded ground motions significantly. To demonstrate this from an empirical perspective, ground motion data and available finite‐fault models for the 2011 M 9.0 Tohoku, 2003 M 8.3 Tokachi‐oki, and 2005 M 7.2 Miyagi‐oki earthquakes are analyzed. The impact of different finite‐fault models on the development of ground motion prediction equations for these large subduction events is significant. Importantly, the results suggest that comparison of observed ground motion data with existing ground motion prediction models is not straightforward; different conclusions may be reached regarding agreement/disagreement between empirical data and developed models, depending on the selected finite‐fault model. These results are particularly relevant to the development of ground motion prediction equations for subduction regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".