MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276738526 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066151

Effects of lateral variations in megaregolith thickness on predicted lunar seismic signals

2015· article· en· W2276738526 on OpenAlexafffund
J. F. Blanchette-Guertin, C. L. Johnson, J. F. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSeismogramGeologySeismologyScatteringCrustSeismic energySeismic waveGeophysicsSynthetic seismogramOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use a modified phonon synthetic seismogram method to investigate the effects of laterally varying megaregolith thickness on the propagation of seismic energy and on the resulting seismic signals recorded at various epicentral distances from the source. We show that receivers located in large impact structures, with thin crust and thinner megaregolith, can record seismic signals that are less affected by high levels of scattering. In particular, receivers located away from the basin edge by a distance greater than or equal to the thickness of the surrounding megaregolith can record seismograms in which secondary arrivals containing important information about interior structure can be more readily identified. Seismic sources located beneath the near‐surface scattering layer, such as deep lunar quakes, are also advantageous because the resulting seismograms are less affected by high levels of scattering than those from sources within the scattering layer or surface impacts.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207