MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324502495 · doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.6.984

Moment Magnitude (Mw) Conversion Relations for Use in Hazard Assessment in Eastern Canada

2011· article· en· W2324502495 on OpenAlex
A L Bent

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsCitationGeological surveyMoment magnitude scaleHazardLibrary scienceObservatoryGeographyGeologySeismologyInformation retrievalComputer sciencePhysicsPaleontologyMathematicsAstronomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.163 · 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