MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328540640 · doi:10.1785/gssrl.71.2.283

Paleoseismicity: Seismicity Evidence for Past Large Earthquakes

2000· article· en· W2328540640 on OpenAlex
John E. Ebel, K.‐P. Bonjer, Mihnea Corneliu Oncescu

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clusters of earthquakes in continental intraplate regions are used to estimate the times and magnitudes of past earthquakes in a model we call “paleoseismicity.” The time of a past earthquake is estimated from an Omori-law decay of the aftershocks with time, while the magnitude of the earthquake is inferred from the length of the current zone of seismic activity. The observed aftershocks of several intraplate earthquakes are used to find the parameters describing the Omorilaw aftershock decay, and these parameters are found to fall in the same range as those for aftershock sequences from California. The paleoseismicity model is shown to be approximately consistent with the current seismicity rates at the New Madrid, Missouri; Charleston, South Carolina; and Charlevoix, Quebec seismic zones. Near Basel in Switzerland, the paleoseismicity model is consistent with the occurrence of the large earthquake there in 1356. However, at Ardennes-Hautes Fagnes, Belgium; Hainaut, Belgium; and Bree, Belgium the paleoseismicity model either underestimates the rate of current seismicity or suggests earthquakes not known in the historic record. The paleoseismicity model may be most applicable to low-strain-rate, intraplate regions where aftershock rates above the background seismicity level can persist for very long periods of time. If many current small earthquakes are aftershocks of past large events, then it may not be appropriate to use earthquake rates from recent seismicity to calculate the seismic hazard in probabilistic analyses.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.204 · 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