Pattern informatics approach to earthquake forecasting in 3D
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural seismicity is correlated across multiple spatial and temporal scales, but correlations in seismicity prior to a large earthquake are locally subtle (e.g. seismic quiescence) and often prominent in broad scale (e.g. seismic activation), resulting in local and regional seismicity patterns, e.g. a Mogi's donut. Recognizing that patterns in seismicity rate are reflecting the regional dynamics of the directly unobservable crustal stresses, the Pattern Informatics (PI) approach was introduced by Tiampo et al . and Rundle et al . in 2002. In this study, we expand the PI approach to forecasting earthquakes into the third or vertical dimension, and illustrate its further improvement in the forecasting performance through case studies of both natural and synthetic data. The PI characterizes rapidly evolving spatio‐temporal seismicity patterns as angular drifts of a unit state vector in a high‐dimensional correlation space, and systematically identifies anomalous shifts in seismic activity with respect to the regional background. 3D PI analysis is particularly advantageous over 2D analysis in resolving vertically overlapped seismicity anomalies in a highly complex tectonic environment. Case studies will help to illustrate some important properties of the PI forecasting tool. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it