MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036735605 · doi:10.1029/2020gl088168

Injection‐Induced Earthquakes on Complex Fault Zones of the Raton Basin Illuminated by Machine‐Learning Phase Picker and Dense Nodal Array

2020· article· en· W3036735605 on OpenAlexaff
Ruijia Wang, Brandon Schmandt, Miao Zhang, Margaret Glasgow, E. Kiser, Sarah Rysanek, Ryan Stairs

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeismologyInduced seismicityGeologyHypocenterTectonicsStructural basinDaytimeBasementFocal mechanismFault (geology)Magnitude (astronomy)Geomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seismicity in the Raton Basin over the past two decades suggests reactivation of basement faults due to waste‐water injection. In the summer of 2018, 96 short period three‐component nodal instruments were installed in a highly active region of the basin for a month. A machine‐learning based phase picker (PhaseNet) was adopted and identified millions of picks, which were associated into events using an automated algorithm—REAL (Rapid Earthquake Association and Location). After hypocenter relocation with hypoDD, the earthquake catalog contains 9,259 M L −2.2 to 3 earthquakes focused at depths of 4–6 km. Magnitude of completeness (Mc) varies from −1 at nighttime to −0.5 in daytime, likely reflecting noise variation modulated by wind. The clustered hypocenters with variable depths and focal mechanisms suggest a complex network of basement faults. Frequency‐magnitude statistics and the spatiotemporal evolution of seismicity are comparable to tectonic systems.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations84
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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