MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335263249 · doi:10.1190/segam2013-0648.1

Magnitude calibration for microseismic events from hydraulic fracture monitoring

2013· article· en· W2335263249 on OpenAlexaff
Rongfeng Zhou, G. D. Huang, Paige Snelling, Michael Thornton, Mike Mueller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroseismCalibrationHydraulic fracturingMagnitude (astronomy)GeologyFracture (geology)SeismologyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnitude estimation for microseismic events is critical to microseismic mapping of hydraulic fracture stimulation, discrete fracture network (DFN) modeling, as well as accurate estimated stimulated rock volume (SRV). We estimated magnitude of microseismic events based on the mean peak ground velocity (PGV), calibrated by a reference moment magnitude obtained from moment tensor inversion. For 265 good signal to noise ratio (SNR) events recorded using a near-surface seismic array (receivers buried at an approximate depth of 30m), the square of the correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.95 between moment magnitudes and calibrated magnitudes based on mean PGV values. The high correlation coefficient suggests that reliable magnitude estimations for detected events from surface or near surface observations are obtainable. The b-value based on frequency-magnitude distribution for 10,594 events detected from this project is about 2.0, a typical value for fracturing related events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207