MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304693772 · doi:10.1785/0220220162

Revised Earthquake Geology Inputs for the Central and Eastern United States and Southeast Canada for the 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model

2022· article· en· W4304693772 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Thompson Jobe, Alexandra E. Hatem, Ryan D. Gold, Christopher B. DuRoss, Nadine G. Reitman, Richard W. Briggs, Camille Collett

Bibliographic record

VenueSeismological Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic hazardGeologySeismologyFault (geology)Polygon (computer graphics)Active faultSeismic gapGeospatial analysisEarthquake scenarioRemote sensingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It has been about a decade since updates to seismic and fault sources in the central and eastern United States (CEUS) were last assessed for the 2012 Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for nuclear facilities (CEUS-SSCn) and 2014 U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. In advance of the 2023 NSHM update, we created three related geospatial databases to summarize and characterize new fault source information for the CEUS. These include fault section, fault-zone polygon, and earthquake geology (fault slip rate, earthquake recurrence intervals) databases that document updates to fault parameters used in the prior seismic hazard models in this region. The 2012 CEUS-SSCn and 2014 NSHM fault models served as a foundation, as we revised and added fault sources where new published studies documented significant changes to our understanding of fault location, geometry, or activity. We added nine new fault sections that meet the criteria of (1) a length ≥7 km, (2) evidence of recurrent Quaternary tectonic activity, and (3) documentation that is publicly available in a peer-reviewed source. The prior CEUS models only included six fault sections (sources) and 10 fault-zone polygons (previously called repeating large-magnitude earthquake [RLME] polygons). The revised databases include 15 fault sections and 12 fault-zone polygons. Updates to the faults constitute a 150% increase in fault sections, and two additional fault-zone polygons, although some fault-zone polygons differ from RLME polygons used in the prior models. No faults were removed from the past models. Several seismic zones and suspected faults were evaluated but not included in this update due to a lack of information about fault location, geometry, or recurrent Quaternary activity. These updates to the fault sections, fault-zone polygons, and earthquake geology databases will inform fault geometry and activity rates of CEUS sources during the 2023 NSHM implementation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeismological Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207