MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311187301 · doi:10.23860/diss-he-bing-2022

DETECTING SLOW SLIP EVENTS FROM SEAFLOOR PRESSURE DATA USING MACHINE LEARNING

2022· dissertation· en· W4311187301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bing He

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeafloor spreadingGeologySeismologySubmarine pipelineSubductionSlip (aerodynamics)TrenchGeodetic datumEpisodic tremor and slipGeodesyTectonicsGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Largest earthquakes with destructive tsunamic waves mostly occurred in the offshore subduction zone, causing massive fatalities and significant property losses. Due to the limitations of the seafloor geodesy, it is hard to know the stress status offshore, like the terrestrial geodesy. The shallow slow slip event (SSE) occurrence provides an approach to studying the shallow subduction zone stress status and investigating the area and size of the potential large earthquake and following tsunamis. SSE is a bridge linking the slip rates from aseismic creeping near the trench to the highly locked region in the seismogenic zone. Seafloor pressure measurement, as the high precision, low cost, and continuous vertical deformation records, is the most common way of studying offshore vertical deformation caused by geodetic movements. However, due to the long-term instrumental drift and considerable water movement noise in the data, detecting and measuring shallow SSEs from the seafloor pressure data is still very hard. In manuscript one, we developed a machine learning detector to detect the slow slip event in seafloor pressure data. Because real seafloor pressure data is not this abundant, we first trained the machine learning detector using synthetic data, and then applied the well-trained detector to the real seafloor pressure data collected by the HOBITSS project in New Zealand. The trained model can successfully detect an SSE and the accuracy increases with SSE amplitude. The synthetic data test also shows that the machine learning model outperformed the traditional matched filter method. Our detector found five events in real pressure data in New Zealand between 2014-12015, two of which are confirmed by the onshore GPS records. In manuscript two, we applied our machine learning detector to Alaska. The Southern Alaska subduction zone is a high seismic risk zone. Megathrust earthquakes and following devastating tsunami waves threaten south Alaska and the entire Canada and US west coast. We want to know the stress status at the shallow subduction zone in southern Alaska. In this study, we improved our previous machine learning detector by detecting both uplift and subsidence signals. We found four adjacent stations at 100-m water depth were uplifted, while four adjacent stations near the trench subsided in days 290-310 of 2018. This pattern is unlikely oceanographic in origin, based on an analysis of 10-year model output from an ocean circulation model (HYCOM). This pattern is consistent with a simulated ground deformation from a circular SSE on the subduction

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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