MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163323499 · doi:10.5047/eps.2013.02.006

Spatial distribution of seismicity parameters in the Persian Plateau

2013· article· en· W2163323499 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammad Ashtari Jafari

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Planets and Space · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGeologySeismologyInduced seismicityCrustTectonicsPlateau (mathematics)AttenuationGeodynamicsSlip (aerodynamics)Stress fieldGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, seismicity parameters in the Persian Plateau are estimated and represented as colored maps. We depict the b-value variations as an indication of either changing material properties, or the heterogeneity of the stress field in this region. The lower b-values in some regions indicate that the seismic energy release in these areas is mostly provided by large magnitude earthquakes. Yet the b-value around northern CentralIran and Eastern Alborz seems to be near unity, which implies that the seismic energy release is compatible for larger and smaller earthquakes. We also compared our results with some existing seismological information on Iran. Regarding attenuation: low-Q (high attenuation) regions approximately correspond to relatively lower b-value regions, and areas with nearly medium/high b-values correspond to high-velocity anomaly zones inferred from tomographic inversions. Meanwhile, regions associated with thrust and strike-slip faulting was associated with low/medium b-values. The higher b-values in NW Iran agree with the regional extensional tectonics and low/medium b-values were in agreement with regional compressional/strike-slip tectonics. In terms of geodynamics, this may be interpreted as an indication of a weak crust in NW Iran versus stronger crust (zones under stress) in other parts.

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)0.000
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Planets and SpaceSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207