MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970330873 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav7172

The role of aseismic slip in hydraulic fracturing–induced seismicity

2019· article· en· W2970330873 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas S. Eyre, David W. Eaton, Dmitry Garagash, Megan Zecevic, Marco Venieri, Ronald Weir, Don C. Lawton

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundMicroseismic Industry Consortium
KeywordsHydraulic fracturingInduced seismicityGeologyCreepSlip (aerodynamics)Geotechnical engineeringFault (geology)SeismologyMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models for hydraulic fracturing-induced earthquakes in shales typically ascribe fault activation to elevated pore pressure or increased shear stress; however, these mechanisms are incompatible with experiments and rate-state frictional models, which predict stable sliding (aseismic slip) on faults that penetrate rocks with high clay or total organic carbon. Recent studies further indicate that the earthquakes tend to nucleate over relatively short injection time scales and sufficiently far from the injection zone that triggering by either poroelastic stress changes or pore pressure diffusion is unlikely. Here, we invoke an alternative model based on recent laboratory and in situ experiments, wherein distal, unstable regions of a fault are progressively loaded by aseismic slip on proximal, stable regions stimulated by hydraulic fracturing. This model predicts that dynamic rupture initiates when the creep front impinges on a fault region where rock composition favors dynamic and slip rate weakening behavior.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations295
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207