MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791589553 · doi:10.1002/2017gl076100

The Geological Susceptibility of Induced Earthquakes in the Duvernay Play

2018· article· en· W2791589553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Pawley, Ryan Schultz, Tiffany Playter, Hilary Corlett, Todd Shipman, Steven Lyster, Tyler E. Hauck

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeologySeismologyTectonicsSeismic hazardBasementSedimentary rockPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Presently, consensus on the incorporation of induced earthquakes into seismic hazard has yet to be established. For example, the nonstationary, spatiotemporal nature of induced earthquakes is not well understood. Specific to the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, geological bias in seismogenic activation potential has been suggested to control the spatial distribution of induced earthquakes regionally. In this paper, we train a machine learning algorithm to systemically evaluate tectonic, geomechanical, and hydrological proxies suspected to control induced seismicity. Feature importance suggests that proximity to basement, in situ stress, proximity to fossil reef margins, lithium concentration, and rate of natural seismicity are among the strongest model predictors. Our derived seismogenic potential map faithfully reproduces the current distribution of induced seismicity and is suggestive of other regions which may be prone to induced earthquakes. The refinement of induced seismicity geological susceptibility may become an important technique to identify significant underlying geological features and address induced seismic hazard forecasting issues.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations102
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207