Quantifying the similarity of seismic polarizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the similarities of seismic attributes can help identify tremor, low signal-to-noise (S/N) signals and converted or reflected phases, in addition to diagnosing site noise and sensor misalignment in arrays. Polarization analysis is a widely accepted method for studying the orientation and directional characteristics of seismic phases via computed attributes, but similarity is ordinarily discussed using qualitative comparisons with reference values or known seismic sources. Here we introduce a technique for quantitative polarization similarity that uses weighted histograms computed in short, overlapping time windows, drawing on methods adapted from the image processing and computer vision literature. Our method accounts for ambiguity in azimuth and incidence angle and variations in S/N ratio. Measuring polarization similarity allows easy identification of site noise and sensor misalignment and can help identify coherent noise and emergent or low S/N phase arrivals. Dissimilar azimuths during phase arrivals indicate misaligned horizontal components, dissimilar incidence angles during phase arrivals indicate misaligned vertical components and dissimilar linear polarization may indicate a secondary noise source. Using records of the Mw = 8.3 Sea of Okhotsk earthquake, from Canadian National Seismic Network broad-band sensors in British Columbia and Yukon Territory, Canada, and a vertical borehole array at Hoadley gas field, central Alberta, Canada, we demonstrate that our method is robust to station spacing. Discrete wavelet analysis extends polarization similarity to the time–frequency domain in a straightforward way. Time–frequency polarization similarities of borehole data suggest that a coherent noise source may have persisted above 8 Hz several months after peak resource extraction from a ‘flowback’ type hydraulic fracture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".