MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119358008 · doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-7873-9_10

Ergodicity in Natural Fault Systems

2004· book-chapter· en· W3119358008 on OpenAlexaff
K. F. Tiampo, John B. Rundle, W. Klein, J. S. Sá Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueBirkhäuser Basel eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErgodicityErgodic theoryFault (geology)MetastabilityStatistical physicsGeologyPhysicsMathematicsSeismologyPure mathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to understand the physics of earthquakes over the past decade generally have focused on applying methods and theories developed based upon phase transitions, materials science, and percolation theory to a variety of numerical simulations of extended fault networks. This recent work suggests that fault systems can be interpreted as mean-field threshold systems in metastable equilibrium ( Rundle et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1997; Ferguson et al. 1999), and that these results strongly support the view that seismic activity is highly correlated across many space and time scales within large volumes of the earth’s crust ( Rundle et al. 2000; Tiampo et al. 2002). In these systems, the time averaged elastic energy of the system fluctuates around a constant value for some period of time and is punctuated by major events that reorder the system before it settles into another metastable energy well. One way to measure the stability of such a system is to check a quantity called the Thirumalai-Mountain (TM) energy metric ( Thirumalai and Mountain , 1993; Klein et al. 1996). In particular, using this metric, we show that the actual California fault system is ergodic in space and time for the period in question, punctuated by the occurrence of large earthquakes, and that, for individual events in the system, there are correlated regions that are a subset of the larger fault network. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirkhäuser Basel eBooksSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207