MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793433453 · doi:10.4095/306292

A comprehensive earthquake catalogue for northeastern British Columbia and western Alberta, 2014-2016

2017· report· en· W2793433453 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ryan Visser, Brindley Smith, Honn Kao, Alireza Babaie Mahani, J Hutchinson, Joyce McKay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographySeismologyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To gain a better understanding of induced seismicity in northeast British Columbia and western Alberta, we conducted an intensive analysis of seismic data to locate earthquakes that occurred within the area of 52°N-61°N, 126°W-115°W for the years of 2014 through 2016. Continuous seismic waveforms from as many as 43 stations operated by various organizations in the region were used in this study. A total of 5478 events were identified and located; but only 4916 solutions were deemed acceptable by our quality criteria. The number of earthquakes in our final catalogue is approximately three times the base level of the Canadian National Seismograph Network catalogue. In this report, we describe in detail our location procedures and how each source parameter (origin time, epicenter, focal depth, and magnitude) is determined. The earthquake catalogue is summarized in a table, while the phase picking data for individual events are presented in an ASCII file as a supplement to this report. The total numbers of events in 2014, 2015, and 2016 are 1287, 1575, and 2057, respectively. The overall magnitude of completeness of our catalogue is ML 1.8, an improvement from the value of 2.3 for the CNSN catalogue.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0190.029
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207