The Intensity of Ground Motions from Induced Earthquakes with Implications for Damage Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The damage potential of induced earthquakes is compared to that of natural tectonic events, considering recent instrumental data and felt records from events of M 3.5–5.8 (in which M is the moment magnitude). Ground motions are mutually consistent at close distances (<30 km) for natural earthquakes in California, induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, and induced earthquakes in western Canada, despite differences in the dominant processes that trigger the events. Recorded peak ground motions may exceed the damage threshold for induced events of M∼4.0 within ∼5 km of the hypocenter; events of M≥4.5 are inferred to have significant damage potential within 5 km and may be damaging to greater distances. Felt and damage effects in Oklahoma, as reported on the U.S. Geological Survey’s online “Did You Feel It?” system, show that the damage threshold (modified Mercalli intensity [MMI] = 6) is commonly exceeded for events of M∼4.5 at close distances (<10 km) and that significant damage effects (MMI=7) are observed for M>4.8 events within 10 km.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".