Testing an Empirical Green’s Function Method for Determining the Rupture Parameters of the 24 April 2014 Vancouver Island Earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, we examine the 24 April 2014 Mw 6.4 earthquake offshore Vancouver Island using a surface-wave empirical Green’s function (EGF) deconvolution method and compare the results with SeaJade II double-difference aftershock locations. The 24 April event was well recorded and provides the first opportunity to evaluate the suitability of surface-wave EGF deconvolution to constrain rupture details for moderate-sized earthquakes in areas lacking dense seismic arrays. Our surface-wave EGF deconvolution results agree with the aftershock distribution and previously determined centroid moment tensor results. This agreement suggests that this technique is valid for events of this magnitude in a sparsely networked region. We used an Mw 5.3 earthquake about 21 km from the 24 April epicenter as the primary EGF source event and applied stacking to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Our analysis used broadband seismic data from 105 regional and teleseismic stations. Given the small magnitudes of these events, an aftershock (Mw 4.8) was considered a secondary EGF source to verify key observations. The relative source time functions obtained from this study reveal an overall rupture direction of 143°±6°, extent of 28±2 km, and duration of 16.7±0.3 s. We also determined that the rupture occurred in multiple, distinct subevents, but the deconvolution was unable to determine the subevent parameters. Double-difference aftershock relocations using both onshore and offshore seismometers indicate a 32±2 km unilateral rupture with strike of 146°±2°. These independently determined rupture parameters agree with previously determined centroid moment tensor results with a nodal plane striking 150°±6°.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".