MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928614424 · doi:10.1029/2018jb017050

Seismicity‐Scanning Based on Navigated Automatic Phase‐Picking

2019· article· en· W2928614424 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of VictoriaGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityIntersection (aeronautics)WorkflowSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceGeologySeismologyRelation (database)Pattern recognition (psychology)Data miningAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a new method, named Seismicity‐Scanning based on Navigated Automatic Phase‐picking (S‐SNAP), that is capable of delineating complex spatiotemporal distributions of seismicity. This novel algorithm takes a cocktail approach that combines source scanning, kurtosis‐based phasepicking, and the maximum intersection location technique into a single integrated workflow. This method is automated, detecting and locating earthquakes efficiently, comprehensively, and accurately. We apply S‐SNAP to a data set recorded by a dense local seismic array during a hydraulic fracturing operation to test this novel approach and to demonstrate its effectiveness in relation to existing methods. Overall, S‐SNAP found about 3.5 times as many high‐quality events as a template matching‐based catalogue. All events in the previous catalogue are identified with similar epicenters, depths, and magnitudes, while no false detections are found by visual inspection.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.333 · 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