MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297136396 · doi:10.1002/2015gl066917

Source analysis of a potential hydraulic‐fracturing‐induced earthquake near Fox Creek, Alberta

2015· article· en· W2297136396 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruijia Wang, Yu Jeffrey Gu, Ryan Schultz, Ahyi Kim, Gail M. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHypocenterGeologySeismologyHydraulic fracturingSeismic momentFocal mechanismFault planeAftershockMoment magnitude scaleMagnitude (astronomy)Fault (geology)Oil shaleInduced seismicityGeotechnical engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An earthquake with a reported magnitude of 4.4 ( M L ) was detected on 13 June 2015 in western central Alberta, Canada. This event was the third felt earthquake this year near Fox Creek, a shale gas exploration region. Our results from full moment tensor inversions of regional broadband data show a strong strike‐slip mechanism with near‐vertical fault plane solutions. The decomposition of the moment tensor solution is overwhelmingly double couple, while only a modest (∼20%) contribution is attributed to compensated‐linear‐vector‐dipole. The depth of this earthquake is 3–4 km, near the base of the sedimentary layer, and the moment magnitude ( M = 3.9) of this event is considerably smaller than the initial reported M L value. The hypocenter location, depth, and mechanism are favorable to a possible association between this earthquake and hydraulic fracturing operations within the Duvernay shale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations76
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207