MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3002396671 · doi:10.5194/se-2019-191

An MCMC Bayesian full moment tensor inversion constrained by first-motion polarities and double couple percent

2020· article· en· W3002396671 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mehrdad Pakzad, Mahnaz Khalili, Shaghayegh VahidRavesh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TehranInternational Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyEidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloBayesian probabilityAlgorithmMonte Carlo methodMoment (physics)Moment tensorMathematicsCovariance matrixCovarianceSecond moment of areaComputer scienceStatisticsPhysicsGeometryMagnitude (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Monte Carlo Markov chain (MCMC) samplings can obtain a set of samples by directed random walk, mapping the posterior probability density of the model parameters in Bayesian framework. We perform earthquake waveform inversion to retrieve focal angles or the elements of moment tensor and source location using a Bayesian MCMC method with the constraints of first-motion polarities and double couple percentage using full Green functions and data covariance matrix. The algorithm tests the compatibility with polarities and also checks the double couple percentage of every site before the time-consuming synthetic seismogram computation for every sample of moment tensor of every trial source position. Other than large earthquakes, the method is especially suitable for weak events (M

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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