MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981824467 · doi:10.4095/221816

Digital accelerograph recordings of the July 15 and 19, 2004 earthquakes, west of Vancouver Island

2006· report· en· W2981824467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheri Molnar, A. Rosenberger, J. F. Cassidy, Garry C. Rogers, John Ristau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two earthquakes of MW 5.8 [ML 5.5] and MW 6.4 [ML 6.1] occurred on the 15th and 19th of July 2004, respectively, approximately 30 km off the west coast of Vancouver Island. They were shallow strike-slip fault earthquakes (~12 km focal depth). Both earthquakes were felt across Vancouver Island and as far east as the Sunshine Coast (~200 km) and the greater Vancouver region (~300 km). The MW 5.8 earthquake showed observable waveforms on 34 of 60 Internet Accelerograph instruments and triggered two non-communicating (stand alone) strong motion instruments. The MW 6.4 earthquake showed observable waveforms on 41 of 60 Internet Accelerograph instruments and triggered three noncommunicating strong motion instruments. The largest peak horizontal ground accelerations recorded were 6.19 cm/s2 and 13.78 cm/s2 for the MW 5.8 and MW 6.4 events, respectively. This data set is significant because it includes the first widespread earthquake recordings by the new Internet Accelerograph instruments. In this Open File report we present time series plots of the acceleration, and velocity data from the 15th and 19th July 2004 earthquakes. Tabulated station parameters and peak accelerations are given together with maps of the network configuration showing the locations of recorded time series. A sample of stations on the Lower Mainland and in Victoria show a variation in the level of ground shaking based on local site conditions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207