Kinked magnitude distributions for hydraulic fracturing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In earthquake seismology, the seismicity magnitude distributions generally follow the well-known Gutenberg-Richter relationship with slope defined by the b-value; yet, observed drops from b≃2 to b≃1 have been interpreted to indicate fault activation during hydraulicfracturing completions. A careful investigation of the seismic magnitudes of events recorded during a hydraulic fracturing program in Alberta, Canada, shows that the distribution is bilinear (or “kinked”), with a distinct change in slope from b≃1.6 for MW<1.0 to b≃0.6 for MW>1.0 when the entire catalog is considered. Analysis of the b-value for distinct clusters of events shows that the kinked distribution arises here from superposition of different magnitude distributions for each cluster. We consider two hypotheses for the spatial variability in b-value, namely that the b-value variations reflect an underlying variability in stress state, or an underlying variability in the fault/fracture size distribution. Start Time: 8:30:00 AM Location: 210C (Anaheim Convention Center) Presentation Type: Oral
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".