The 2015 Canada Day,<i>M</i><sub>w</sub> 3.8, Earthquake in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| August 10, 2016 The 2015 Canada Day, Mw 3.8, Earthquake in Nova Scotia Allison L. Bent; Allison L. Bent aCanadian Hazards Information Service, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 7 Observatory Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0Y3allison.bent@canada.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Veronika Peci; Veronika Peci aCanadian Hazards Information Service, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 7 Observatory Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0Y3allison.bent@canada.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Stephen Halchuk Stephen Halchuk aCanadian Hazards Information Service, Geological Survey of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 7 Observatory Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0Y3allison.bent@canada.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Seismological Research Letters (2016) 87 (5): 1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160074 Article history first online: 14 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Allison L. Bent, Veronika Peci, Stephen Halchuk; The 2015 Canada Day, Mw 3.8, Earthquake in Nova Scotia. Seismological Research Letters 2016;; 87 (5): 1224–1231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160074 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 On 1 July 2015, a magnitude (MN, Mw) 3.8 earthquake occurred north of Yarmouth in southwestern Nova Scotia, a region of extremely low seismicity. Prior to this event, only five earthquakes had been recorded within 50 km of its epicenter since 2000. The earthquake caused no damage but was widely felt in southwestern Nova Scotia with nearly 600 people filling out the Geological Survey of Canada’s online “Did You Feel It?” form. Good‐quality regional seismograms enabled us to determine the source parameters of the earthquake. The focal mechanism determined by a regional centroid moment tensor inversion is indicative of oblique‐thrust faulting. We believe this to be the first focal mechanism solution for a Nova Scotian earthquake. It is consistent with those of earthquakes in the neighboring regions of New Brunswick and Maine and with the regional stress field. Depths were obtained by the moment tensor inversion and by regional depth phase modeling, with consistent results indicative of a focal depth of 9–10 km. The Mw 3.8 is larger than average based on the MN value but within the range of previous observations for eastern Canada. A magnitude (MN) 2.2 aftershock occurred ∼7 min after the mainshock but was not reported as felt. A focal depth of 8 km was obtained via the regional depth phase method. The focal mechanism of the aftershock was not determined directly, but a comparison of the waveforms to those of the mainshock suggests a similar source. 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.020 |
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".