MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118852141 · doi:10.1785/0120200257

Equivalent Point-Source Ground-Motion Model for Subduction Earthquakes in Japan

2021· article· en· W3118852141 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Hassani, Gail M. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubductionSeismologyGeologySlabAttenuationAmplitudeShear (geology)Strong ground motionGround motionPoint (geometry)Point sourceTectonicsGeophysicsGeometryPhysicsPetrologyOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We use an equivalent point-source ground-motion model (GMM) to characterize subduction earthquakes (interface and in-slab) in Japan. The model, which is calibrated using the newly published Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Subduction database (Bozorgnia et al., 2020), provides a useful complement to the more traditional empirical NGA models developed from the same database. The utility of the point-source model approach lies in its ability to aid in the interpretation of observed trends in the data and to guide modifications to the GMM for application to other regions having fewer data. Key trends in the data that are parameterized with the model include: (a) the enrichment of high-frequency amplitudes for in-slab versus interface events, as modeled by a depth-dependent stress parameter, and (b) attenuation attributes that vary with event type and region, including consideration of fore-arc versus back-arc settings. The developed GMMs of this study are applicable for M 4.5–9.2 for interface events, and M 4–8.5 for in-slab earthquakes, for rupture distances (Drup) from 10 to 600 km, and for 100 m/s<VS30<1500 m/s (time-averaged shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m).

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207