MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957524536 · doi:10.1029/2019tc005503

Coseismic Ground Rupture of the 15 October 2013 Magnitude (<i>M</i><sub><i>W</i></sub>) 7.2 Bohol Earthquake, Bohol Island, Central Philippines

2019· article· en· W2957524536 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Rimando, Mario Aurelio, J. D. B. Dianala, Kristine Joy L. Taguibao, Krissen Marie C. Agustin, Al Emil G. Berador, Adriann A. Vasquez

Bibliographic record

VenueTectonics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of the Philippines
KeywordsGeologySeismologyFault scarpSubmarine pipelineFault (geology)Magnitude (astronomy)Thrust faultFault planeCaliphateAnticlineOceanographyTectonicsGeographyArchaeologyIslam

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 15 October 2013 magnitude (MW) 7.2 Bohol earthquake produced an ~50‐km‐long, ~12‐km‐wide northeast trending zone of uplift with an ~8‐km‐long discontinuous ground rupture indicating predominantly reverse‐slip movement on a southeast dipping fault. Documentation of the nearly continuous northern terminus of the 2013 Bohol earthquake ground rupture revealed its association to preexisting scarps of the previously unmapped, Quaternary‐active North Bohol Fault. Trenching across the rupture at four sites not only reveals the geometry and kinematics of the fault but also shows at least one or two pre‐2013 surface rupturing events. Onshore geologic mapping and offshore seismic reflection profiles demonstrate the presence of an island‐wide, northeast‐southwest trending fold‐and‐thrust belt through which deformation related to the regional shortening across the Visayan Sea Basin in the central Philippines is likely distributed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTectonicsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207