MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015491438 · doi:10.1029/2019gl086236

Insight Into Major Active Faults in Central Myanmar and the Related Geodynamic Sources

2020· article· en· W3015491438 on OpenAlexaff
Chit Thet Mon, Xuan Gong, Yun Wen, Mingming Jiang, Qi‐Fu Chen, Miao Zhang, Guangbing Hou, Myo Thant, Kyaing Sein, Yumei He

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan Joint FundCAS-SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams
KeywordsSeismologyGeologySinistral and dextralTectonicsCrustFault (geology)SeismotectonicsFocal mechanismActive faultGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Myanmar, one of the most active tectonic regions in the world, endures the risk of destructive earthquakes. Based on seismic data recorded at the recently deployed dense array of the China‐Myanmar Geophysical Survey in the Myanmar Orogen (CMGSMO), we detect 854 and locate 599 shallow earthquakes with high precision and determine the focal mechanisms of 40 earthquakes. We identify two NW‐SE trending fault zones accommodating dextral strike‐slip earthquakes beneath the Central Basin, indicating potential seismic risk in the region. We also recognize a nearly N‐S trending seismic zone in the overlying Indo‐Burma Ranges (IBR) crust near the Kabaw Fault (KBF). The earthquakes within this seismic zone mostly show thrusting focal mechanisms. Our results suggest that strike‐slip deformation dominates to the east of the KBF, while shortening is mainly confined to the west of the KBF in Central Myanmar.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207