MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3169376344 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-6421

Latent seismicity driven by aseismic creep and enhanced pore-fluid pressure in NE British Columbia

2021· article· en· W3169376344 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca O. Salvage, David W. Eaton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityHydraulic fracturingSeismologyGeologyPore water pressureAftershockPeriod (music)Geotechnical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global pandemic of COVID-19 furnished an opportunity to study seismicity in the Kiskatinaw area of British Columbia, noted for hydraulic-fracturing induced seismicity, during a period of anthropogenic quiescence. A total of 389 events were detected from April to August 2020, encompassing a period with no hydraulic-fracturing operations during a government-imposed lockdown. During this time period, observed seismicity had a maximum magnitude of ML 1.2 and lacked temporal clustering that is often characteristic of hydraulic-fracturing induced sequences. Instead, seismicity was persistent over the lockdown period, similar to swarm-like seismicity with no apparent foreshock-aftershock type sequences. Hypocenters occurred within a corridor orientated NW-SE, just as seismicity had done in previous years in the area, with focal depths near the target Montney formation or shallower (<2.5 km). Based on the Gutenberg-Richter relationship, we estimate that a maximum of 21% of the detected events during lockdown may be attributable to natural seismicity, with a further 8% possibly due to dynamic triggering of seismicity from teleseismic events. The remaining ~70% cannot be attributed to direct pore pressure increases induced by fluid injection, and therefore is inferred to represent latent seismicity i.e. seismicity that occurs after an unusually long delay following primary activation processes, with no obvious triggering mechanism. We can exclude pore-pressure diffusion from the most recent fluid injection, as is there is no clear pattern of temporal or spatial seismicity migration. If elevated pore pressure from previous injections became trapped in the subsurface, this could explain the localization of seismicity within an operational corridor, but it does not explain the latency of seismicity on a timescale of months. However, aseismic creep on weak surfaces such as faults, in response to tectonic stresses, in addition to trapped elevation pore-pressure could play a role in stress re-loading to sustain the observed pattern of seismicity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→