MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806042432 · doi:10.1029/2017jb014894

Shear Wave Tomography Beneath the United States Using a Joint Inversion of Surface and Body Waves

2018· article· en· W2806042432 on OpenAlexaff
E. M. Golos, Hongjian Fang, Huajian Yao, Haijiang Zhang, S. Burdick, F. L. Vernon, A. J. Schaeffer, Sergei Lebedev, Robert D. van der Hilst

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of California, San Diego
KeywordsGeologyLithosphereCrustSeismologySeismic tomographyMantle (geology)GeophysicsSurface waveTomographyShear (geology)Seismic waveGeodesyTectonicsPetrologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Resolving both crustal and shallow‐mantle heterogeneity, which is needed to study processes in and fluxes between crust and mantle, is still a challenge for seismic tomography. Body wave data can constrain deep features but often produce vertical smearing in the crust and upper mantle; in contrast, surface wave data can provide good vertical resolution of lithospheric structure but may lack lateral resolution and are less sensitive to the deeper Earth. These two data types are usually treated and inverted separately, and tomographic models therefore do not, in general, benefit from the complementary nature of sampling by body and surface waves. As a pragmatic alternative to full waveform inversions, we formulate linear equations for teleseismic S wave traveltimes and surface wave phase velocities and solve them simultaneously for variations in shear wave speed anomalies in the crust and upper mantle. We apply this technique to data from USArray and permanent seismic networks and present a model of seismic shear wave speed anomalies beneath the continental United States. Our joint model fits the individual data sets almost as well as separate inversions but provides a better explanation of the combined data set. It is generally consistent with previous models but shows improvements over both body wave‐only and surface wave‐only tomography and can lead to refinements in interpretation of features on the scale of the lithosphere and mantle transition zone.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.309
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207