MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020828809 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64560-w

Determination of earthquake epicentres based upon invariant quantities of GRACE strain gravity tensors

2020· article· en· W3020828809 on OpenAlexafffund
Farzam Fatolazadeh, Kalifa Goı̈ta, Rahim Javadi Azar

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de SherbrookeU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEpicenterGeologySeismologyGravitational fieldGeodesyTectonicsEarthquake predictionPhysics

Abstract

Investigation of regional and temporal variations in Earth's gravitational field that are detected by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin-satellites may be useful in earthquake epicentre determinations. This study focuses on monthly spherical harmonic coefficients that were extracted from GRACE observations, which were corrected for hydrological effects to determine earthquake epicentres. For the first time, we use the concept of deformation of Earth's gravity field to estimate invariant components of strain tensors. Four different earthquakes (Iran, China, Turkey, Nepal) were analysed that occurred between 2003 and 2015 and under different hydrological regimes. Wavelet analysis was explored as a means of refining and reconstructing tectonic signals forming the disturbance gravitational potential tensor in the GRACE gravity field models. Dilatation and maximum shear were extracted from these tensors and used to map earthquake epicentre locations. Both components reached their maxima during months of the earthquakes (respectively, 11.78 and 4.93, Bam earthquake; 61.36 and 169.10, Sichuan-Gansu border earthquake; 2415.80 and 627.93, Elazig earthquake; 98.71 and 157.37, Banepa earthquake). For the aforementioned earthquakes, we estimated their respective epicentres in the ranges: φ = 29°-29.5° λ = 58.5°-59°; φ = 32.5°-33° λ = 105.5°-106°; φ = 38.5°-39° λ = 39.5°-40°; and φ = 27.5°-28° λ = 85°-85.5°. Overall, these results agree well with values from other sources. The advance that is provided by our method compared to other research is the ability of determining earthquake epicentres with magnitudes ≤7.5 based upon GRACE observations. However, the approach is of limited use for very deep earthquakes.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Determination of earthquake epicentres from satellite gravity data; geophysics.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This study develops a geophysical method for locating earthquake epicentres, not a study of research methods.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Geophysical method to locate earthquake epicentres from GRACE gravity data; domain geoscience.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207