MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895831433 · doi:10.1029/2018gl079288

Induced Seismicity in Western Canada Linked to Tectonic Strain Rate: Implications for Regional Seismic Hazard

2018· article· en· W2895831433 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Honn Kao, R. D. Hyndman, Yan Jiang, Ryan Visser, Brindley Smith, Alireza Babaie Mahani, Lucinda J. Leonard, Hadi Ghofrani, Jiangheng He

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityGeoscience BCUniversity of VictoriaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInduced seismicityGeologySeismologySeismic hazardTectonicsStrain rateFoothillsSeismic momentFault (geology)GeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A rapid increase of injection‐induced earthquakes (IIE) is often linked to a higher level of seismic hazard. In this study, we compare the geodetically defined moment rate to seismicity distribution in western Canada where significant IIE are observed. The regional seismic pattern is dominated by IIE, both in number and moment, along a 150‐km wide NW‐SE band of moderate strain rate in the easternmost Cordillera and foothills. The observed rate of moment release from local earthquakes is much closer to the tectonic moment rate in the IIE‐dominated areas. We conclude that, on a regional scale, tectonic strain rate is an important control on IIE. Injection in areas with moderate tectonic strain may temporarily increase the local seismic hazard, but widespread IIE over an extended period of time may deplete the available tectonic moment and could, under the right conditions, have a limited long‐term effect of reducing regional seismic hazard.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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