MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2974713752 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-11973

Analyses of earthquakes in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone using data from the United States Transportable Array

2017· dissertation· en· W2974713752 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeismologyAftershockGeologyInduced seismicityFocal mechanismRelocationSeismic zoneEarthquake locationGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research investigates the efficacy of the additional seismic stations that were deployed in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone (WQSZ) as part of the US Transportable Array (USTA) during 2013-2015 in the determination of earthquake source parameters in this zone. The study is concentrated on the determination of hypocentre locations of three sets of data: the aftershock sequence of the 2010 Val-des-Bois earthquake; the aftershock sequence of the 2013 Ladysmith earthquake; and, 18 events of magnitude 3.0 or greater that occurred in the WQSZ from January 2013 to mid-July 2015. An attempt is also made to estimate the focal mechanisms of all events with MN3 that occurred in the WQSZ during 2013-2015. The relocated hypocentres of the two aftershock sequences using the double-difference algorithm through the hypoDD program and the joint hypocentre determination through VELEST software shows insignificant changes in focal depths (toward shallower depths) and only slight variations in the trend of the seismicity (toward the southwest for the Val-des-Bois aftershock and toward the south-east for the Ladysmith aftershock). Relocation of 18 magnitude 3+ events using the standard travel times method demonstrates more reliable focal depths when both the Canadian National Seismograph Network and the USTA data are used. Although favourable coverage provided by the additional USTA can be slightly more effective in obtaining more accurate hypocentres for small earthquakes, the focal mechanism solutions are not remarkably changed when more data from the combined seismic network are used. Dariush Motazedian, for their continuous support, patience, motivation and immense knowledge. They consistently allowed this study to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever they thought I needed it. Also, I must express

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→