MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033495728 · doi:10.1029/2020gl089394

Real‐Time Earthquake Early Warning With Deep Learning: Application to the 2016 M 6.0 Central Apennines, Italy Earthquake

2021· article· en· W3033495728 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsEarthquake locationWarning systemEarthquake warning systemEarthquake simulationWaveformSeismic microzonationMagnitude (astronomy)Earthquake predictionForeshock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are required to report earthquake locations and magnitudes as quickly as possible before the damaging S wave arrival to mitigate seismic hazards. Deep learning techniques provide potential for extracting earthquake source information from full seismic waveforms instead of seismic phase picks. We developed a novel deep learning EEW system that utilizes fully convolutional networks to simultaneously detect earthquakes and estimate their source parameters from continuous seismic waveform streams. The system determines earthquake location and magnitude as soon as very few stations receive earthquake signals and evolutionarily improves the solutions by receiving continuous data. We apply the system to the 2016 M 6.0 Central Apennines, Italy Earthquake and its first‐week aftershocks. Earthquake locations and magnitudes can be reliably determined as early as 4 s after the earliest P phase, with mean error ranges of 8.5–4.7 km and 0.33–0.27, respectively.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations80
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207