MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313538618 · doi:10.1785/0120110252

Relative Source-Time Function Studies and Stress Drop of Earthquakes in Southeastern Alaska-Northwestern Canada

2012· article· en· W2313538618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. R. Escudero, Diane I. Doser

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologySeismologyDrop (telecommunication)EngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use the relative source–time function (RSTF) method to estimate the source properties of earthquakes within southeastern Alaska–northwestern Canada in an effort to determine if there are systematic variations in the source parameters of these earthquakes (e.g., stress drop, rupture complexity, and rupture directivity) with the tectonic setting. In the RSTF technique we deconvolve the P-arrival signal of a smaller event from that of a larger event by the following process: select arrivals with a tapered cosine window, fast Fourier transform to obtain the spectrum, apply a water level to the spectrum of the smaller event, and apply a band-pass filter before inverse transforming the result to obtain the RSTF. Our results show self-similarity over earth-quakes of magnitude less than five and stress drop dependence on focal mechanism. Strike-slip events appear to have larger stress drops, with the highest stress drops for events within the Queen Charlotte fault system. We find evidence for rupture direc-tivity consistent with previous studies for three earthquakes that had adequate azimuthal station coverage.

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)0.002
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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207