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 OpenAlexaff
G. M. Atkinson, SanLinn I. Kaka

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations191
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207