Seismic Hazard and Hydraulic Fracture-induced Seismicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Traditionally, to relate the seismic hazard potential in seismically active areas, empirical ground motion prediction equations (EGMPE) are used to relate event parameters like magnitude and location to site characteristics such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) or peak ground velocity (PGV) which tend to be how building codes are parametrized. There are some key differences between induced and natural seismicity – induced earthquakes tend to be shallower and to release less stress – which affect peak ground motions. Standard EGMPE derived from natural earthquakes may not be appropriatly applied to predict the ground motion generated by induced earthqakes. In this study we develop a new EGMPE specific for hydraulic fracture stimulations in the Horn River basin using PGV and PGA measurements resulting from Mw0.2 to Mw2.9 induced seismic events locally recorded over a two-year period. The strongest recorded PGA of 0.017g was obtained for the largest magnitude event in the dataset and corresponds to the lowest PGA range introduced in the 2014 USGS seismic hazard map for 2475 year return period and could only be felt by a few people. The EGMPE developed in this study can be extrapolated for similar larger magnitude events and included into future Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".