MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241358615 · doi:10.2172/982570

First Quarter Hanford Seismic Report for Fiscal Year 2010

2010· report· en· W4241358615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan C. Rohay, Mark Sweeney, Donald C. Hartshorn, Ray E. Clayton, Joseph L. Devary

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHanford SiteSeismologyMagnitude (astronomy)GeologyQuarter (Canadian coin)RidgeFault (geology)BasaltArchaeologyGeographyPaleontologyEngineeringRadioactive waste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hanford Seismic Network and the Eastern Washington Regional Network consist of 44 individual sensor sites and 15 radio relay sites maintained by the Hanford Seismic Assessment Team. The Hanford Seismic Network recorded 81 local earthquakes during the first quarter of FY 2010. Sixty-five of these earthquakes were detected in the vicinity of Wooded Island, located about eight miles north of Richland just west of the Columbia River. The Wooded Island events recorded this quarter is a continuation of the swarm events observed during fiscal year 2009 and reported in previous quarterly and annual reports (Rohay et al; 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, and 2009d). Most of the events were considered minor (coda-length magnitude [Mc] less than 1.0) with only 1 event in the 2.0-3.0 range; the maximum magnitude event (2.5 Mc) occurred on December 22 at depth 2.1 km. The average depth of the Wooded Island events during the quarter was 1.4 km with a maximum depth estimated at 3.1 km. This placed the Wooded Island events within the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG). The low magnitude of the Wooded Island events has made them undetectable to all but local area residents. The Hanford SMA network was triggered several times by these events and the SMA recordings are discussed in section 6.0. During the last year some Hanford employees working within a few miles of the swarm area and individuals living directly across the Columbia River from the swarm center have reported feeling many of the larger magnitude events. Strong motion accelerometer (SMA) units installed directly above the swarm area at ground surface measured peak ground accelerations approaching 15% g, the largest values recorded at Hanford. This corresponds to strong shaking of the ground, consistent with what people in the local area have reported. However, the duration and magnitude of these swarm events should not result in any structural damage to facilities. The USGS performed a geophysical survey using satellite interferometry that detected approximately 1 inch uplift in surface deformation along an east-west transect within the swarm area. The uplift is thought to be caused by the release of pressure that has built up in sedimentary layers, cracking the brittle basalt layers with the Columbia River Basalt Formation (CRBG) and causing the earthquakes. Similar earthquake swarms have been recorded near this same location in 1970, 1975 and 1988 but not with SMA readings or satellite imagery. Prior to the 1970s, swarming may have occurred, but equipment was not in place to record those events. The Wooded Island swarm, due its location and the limited magnitude of the events, does not appear to pose any significant risk to Hanford waste storage facilities. Since swarms of the past did not intensify in magnitude, seismologists do not expect that these events will persist or increase in intensity. However, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) will continue to monitor the activity. Outside of the Wooded Island swarm, sixteen earthquakes were recorded, all minor events. Seven earthquakes were located at intermediate depths (between 4 and 9 km), most likely in the pre-basalt sediments and nine earthquakes at depths greater than 9 km, within the basement. Geographically, seven earthquakes were located in known swarm areas and nine earthquakes were classified as random events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207