MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785980453 · doi:10.1190/tle37020107a1.1

Five key lessons gained from induced seismicity monitoring in western Canada

2018· article· en· W2785980453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sepideh Karimi, Dario Baturan, Emrah Yenier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicitySeismic hazardSeismologyKey (lock)HazardEvent (particle physics)Ground motionGeologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In response to induced seismicity observed in western Canada, existing public networks have been densified and a number of private networks have been deployed to closely monitor induced earthquakes associated with oil and gas operations in the region. Over the past three years, we generated an unprecedented volume of seismic data from monitoring induced seismicity for some of the most active operators in western Canada. This rich data set can be used to understand preexisting geologic structures, the activation mechanisms and probabilities, and seismological attributes of the resultant ground motions. Acknowledging that the primary goal of private networks is assisting operators in making operational decisions, these insights can play key roles in improving the accuracy of event magnitudes, ground-motion predictions, and hazard estimates, which successively can be used for developing effective risk management strategies.

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)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207