MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162399577 · doi:10.1785/0120060154

Relationships between Felt Intensity and Instrumental Ground Motion in the Central United States and California

2007· article· en· W2162399577 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityWestern University
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Ground motionMotion (physics)GeodesyGeologyGeographySeismologyPhysicsOpticsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we develop empirical relationships between instrumental ground-motion parameters and observed Modified Mercalli Intensity (mmi) by using data from felt moderate earthquakes in the central United States (cus) that were also recorded on broadband seismographic networks and strong-motion recorders in the cus region. The data are calibrated and supplemented at higher intensities based on observations in California. mmi for ShakeMap applications in the cus region, and in California, can be predicted from recorded peak ground velocity (pgv), in cm/sec, with a standard deviation of 0.8 mmi units, using the following equation: MMI = 4.37 + 1.32(log PGV) log PGV ≤ 0.48 MMI = 3.54 + 3.03(log PGV) log PGV ≥ 0.48 There are weak-magnitude and distance-dependent trends in the residuals for this relationship. These trends, if not removed, may lead to apparent regional dependencies in mmi versus ground-motion amplitude relationships. Refined relationships that include magnitude and distance as predictive variables that are applicable throughout North America are defined.

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)0.000
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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