MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254092265 · doi:10.2172/15010241

Hanford Seismic Annual Report and Fourth Quarter Report for Fiscal Year 1999

2000· report· en· W4254092265 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald C. Hartshorn, Steve P. Reidel, Alan C. Rohay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHanford SiteQuarter (Canadian coin)Fiscal yearSeismologyEngineeringGeologyWaste managementRadioactive wasteArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides the seismic record at Hanford for FY 1998. Hanford Seismic Monitoring provides an uninterrupted collection of high-quality raw and processed seismic data from the Hanford Seismic Network (HSN) for the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors. Hanford Seismic Monitoring also locates and identifies sources of seismic activity and monitors changes in the historical pattern of seismic activity at the Hanford Site. The data are compiled, archived, and published for use by the Hanford Site for waste management, Natural Phenomena Hazards assessments, and engineering design and construction. In addition, the seismic monitoring organization works with the Hanford Site Emergency Services Organization to provide assistance in the event of a significant earthquake on the Hanford Site. The HSN and the Eastern Washington Regional Network (EWRN) consist of 40 individual sensor sites and 15 radio relay sites maintained by the Hanford Seismic Monitoring staff. A major reconfiguration of the HSN was initiated at the end of this quarter and the results will be reported in the first quarter report for next fiscal year (FY 2000). For the HSN, there were 390 triggers during the fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 1999 on the primary recording system. With the implementation of dual backup systems during the second quarter of the fiscal year and an overall increase observed in sensitivity, a total of 1632 triggers were examined, identified, and processed during this fiscal year. During the fourth quarter, 24 seismic events were located by the HSN within the reporting region of 46 degrees to 47 degrees north latitude and 119 degrees to 120 degrees west longitude; 9 were earthquakes in the Columbia River Basalt Group, 2 were earthquakes in the pre-basalt sediments, 10 were earthquakes in the crystalline basement, and 2 were quarry blasts. One earthquake appears to be related to a major geologic structure, 14 earthquakes occurred in known swarm areas, and 7 earthquakes were random occurrences. The HSN was shut down on September 21, 1999 in preparation for moving the central recording site from the 300 Area of the Hanford Site to the Sigma V building in Richland, Washington. Two additional seismic events were detected by the University of Washington network and are included in our analysis. One additional earthquake (for a total of 22 for this quarter), and one additional quarry blast were located in the study region during the fourth quarter. For the entire fiscal year, 72 earthquakes were located; 39 were earthquakes in the Columbia River Basalt Group, 6 were earthquakes in the pre-basalt sediments, and 27 were earthquakes in the crystalline basement. Geographically, 47 earthquakes occurred in swarm areas, 4 earthquakes were on major structures, and 21 earthquakes were random occurrences. No earthquakes triggered the Hanford Strong Motion Accelerometers during FY 1999. A special seismic event was detected and located on August 14, 1999 at 12:00 noon. This unusual event appears to be related to the demolition of towers in the 100-D Area, and includes signals from seismic waves from the explosions, seismic waves from the impact of the towers, and later (delayed) acoustic signals from the explosions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2120.182

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207