A Systematic Study of Earthquake Source Mechanism and Regional Stress Field in the Southern Montney Unconventional Play of Northeast British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide a close look at the source mechanism of hydraulically fractured induced earthquakes and the in situ stress field within the southern Montney unconventional play in the northeast British Columbia, Canada. P‐wave first‐motion focal mechanisms were obtained for 66 earthquakes with magnitudes between 1.5 and 4.6. Results show that strike‐slip movement is the prevailing source mechanism for the events in this area, although reverse faulting is also observed for a few earthquakes. The best‐fitting nodal plane mostly strikes at ∼N60° E, with most events having dip angles of >60°. Using the Martinez‐Garzon et al. (2014) stress inversion module, we obtained the orientation of the three principal compressive stress (S1>S2>S3) and the relative intermediate principal stress magnitude (R) in five clusters. Assuming the best‐fitting nodal plane to be the causative fault, R values are mostly between 0.8 and 0.9 suggesting that the magnitude of S2 and S3 are similar, which is consistent with strike‐slip or reverse‐faulting regimes. The plunge of S1 varies between 1° and 3°, with its trend varying between N21°E and N34°E. On the other hand, the plunge of S3 varies between 22° and 50°, with its trend varies between N68°W and N58°W. Following Lund and Townend (2007), we calculated the trend of maximum horizontal stress to vary from N22°E to N33°E, in comparison with the average trend of N41°E from the World Stress Map (Heidbach et al., 2016). Through analysis of the Coulomb failure criterion and Mohr diagrams, we estimated the amount of pore‐pressure increase necessary to initiate shear slip to range between 4 and 29 MPa (average of 14±8 MPa) in the study area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".