Moment Magnitude (Mw) Conversion Relations for Use in Hazard Assessment in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Other| November 01, 2011 Moment Magnitude (Mw) Conversion Relations for Use in Hazard Assessment in Eastern Canada Allison L. Bent Allison L. Bent Canadian Hazards Information Service Geological Survey of Canada 7 Observatory Crescent Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3 Canada bent@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Allison L. Bent Canadian Hazards Information Service Geological Survey of Canada 7 Observatory Crescent Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3 Canada bent@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Online ISSN: 1938-2057 Print ISSN: 0895-0695 © 2011 by the Seismological Society of America Seismological Research Letters (2011) 82 (6): 984–990. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.984 Article history First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Permissions Search Site Citation Allison L. Bent; Moment Magnitude (Mw) Conversion Relations for Use in Hazard Assessment in Eastern Canada. Seismological Research Letters 2011;; 82 (6): 984–990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.6.984 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySeismological Research Letters Search Advanced Search Abstract To be unbiased and uniform across a wide geographical area, seismic hazard assessments based primarily on earthquake recurrence rates require that the same magnitude scale be used for all earthquakes evaluated. Increasingly, moment magnitude, MW, is seen as the magnitude of preference. Moment magnitude, however, was not routinely calculated in the past for earthquakes in Canada, necessitating the conversion from other magnitude types in common use. This step is complicated by the fact that several magnitude scales are routinely reported for Canadian earthquakes with the choice being influenced primarily by geography and to a lesser extent by the size of the earthquake. This paper focuses on eastern Canada, where mN is the most commonly used magnitude scale. Conversions to MW are established and evaluated. The simple conversion of applying a constant is sufficient. However, the conversion is time dependent with the constant changing from 0.41 to 0.53 in the mid-1990s. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.013 |
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".