MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213010337 · doi:10.4095/329612

A revised moment magnitude catalog of eastern Canada's largest earthquakes

2022· report· en· W4213010337 on OpenAlexaffabout
A L Bent

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnitude (astronomy)Moment magnitude scaleRichter magnitude scaleSeismologyGeologyMoment (physics)Maximum magnitudeSeismic momentScale (ratio)Earthquake magnitudeSeismic hazardGeodesyGeographyCartographyPhysicsMathematicsScalingFault (geology)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are many scales used to calculate earthquake magnitude, moment magnitude is currently considered the preferred magnitude scale for use in seismic hazard assessment in Canada. Historically, moment magnitude was not determined for eastern Canadian earthquakes although it has been routinely calculated for earthquakes of approximately magnitude 4.0 and greater, on regional magnitude scales, for the last decade. Thus, most moment magnitudes for eastern Canadian earthquakes must be obtained by converting from another magnitude scale or from felt information. This paper provides a moment magnitude catalog for the largest earthquakes in eastern Canada and vicinity. The study derives moment magnitudes for some events but also makes use of values from the published literature. Earthquakes are assessed individually using all available sources of information. The resulting catalog provides moment magnitudes for 254 events. Three additional events were evaluated but removed from the catalog as it is highly questionable whether they were earthquakes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0250.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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