MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2469158815 · doi:10.1002/2016gl069507

Pattern of dynamic displacements in a strike‐slip earthquake

2016· article· en· W2469158815 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vasso Saltogianni, Michail Gianniou, Fanis Moschas, Stathis C. Stiros

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaStrong
KeywordsGeologySeismologySlip (aerodynamics)AttenuationStrike-slip tectonicsGeodesyDirectivityFault (geology)Trough (economics)Seismic gap

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High‐rate (1 Hz) records from GPS stations uniformly distributed along the fault ruptures of the 2014 Samothraki‐Gökçeada Mw6.9 earthquake in the North Aegean Trough, at the extension of the North Anatolian Fault Zone, were analyzed using the Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique. Computed dynamic displacements shed light to the pattern of dynamic displacements during shallow strike‐slip earthquakes. The area of near‐field static seismic displacements bounds ramp‐type, long‐period dynamic displacements (fling steps) in the sense of static displacements. Along‐fault and normal to fault components of dynamic displacement follow typical attenuation laws, but attenuation is higher in the fault‐parallel component hence confined to the area of static dislocations. Forward directivity and local, especially topography‐controlled amplification effects, consistent with accelerometer evidence, were also observed. The overall pattern seems to characterize shallow strike‐slip earthquakes and is expected to prove useful to explain or even predict the near‐field damaging potential of strike‐slip earthquakes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→