MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949706158 · doi:10.4095/314747

Site corrections and residual analysis for seismograph stations used for magnitude calculations in eastern Canada

2019· report· en· W2949706158 on OpenAlexaffabout
A L Bent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnitude (astronomy)ResidualSeismometerGeodesyGeographyMoment magnitude scaleGeologySeismologyPhysicsMathematicsGeometryAstrophysicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthquake magnitudes are generally determined by taking an average (most often, the arithmetic mean) of magnitudes calculated at many individual seismograph stations. While some variation in station magnitudes stems directly from the seismic source (for example, radiation pattern or directivity) conditions beneath the recording station also affect the calculated value. For example, soft soils tend to amplify the seismic signal resulting in an apparent magnitude that is higher than the true value. By analyzing the differences between the magnitude determined at a specific station and the average magnitude for a large number of earthquakes, a site correction for the station can be determined and then applied as part of the magnitude calculation. Station corrections have been determined for more than three hundred seismographs used in the calculations of magnitudes in eastern Canada. In most cases, the site corrections are small but several stations with significant corrections were identified. Magnitudes were recalculated applying the corrections. When the earthquake catalog is considered as a whole, the effect is negligible but there are many individual earthquakes for which it is significant. The remaining residuals after the application of the site corrections were further evaluated to determine whether they are dependent on parameters such as distance, azimuth or frequency. A consistent pattern of residuals with respect to distance is seen at a large number of stations spanning the region, suggesting that the attenuation relation used in magnitude calculations may need to be modified. In most regions azimuthal dependence is minimal but a few regions have been targeted for further study. Residuals are near zero for periods of ~0.02 - ~0.5 sec and then slowly increase with increasing period, raising questions about the validity of using the magnitude equation over a wider range of frequencies than that for which it was originally intended.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207