Testing Hypotheses for Geological Controls on Hydraulic-Fracturing-Induced Seismicity in the Montney Formation, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing (HF) can trigger induced seismicity, but documented occurrences tend to be localized compared with the regional extent of industry operations. Factors that determine intrinsic geological susceptibility of a given region to induced seismicity remain incompletely understood. To address this uncertainty, we have developed a stochastic modeling approach to enable statistical testing of hypotheses regarding the distribution of induced seismicity. For reference, we adopted a null hypothesis that HF-induced seismic events are randomly associated with HF wells. Realizations of synthetic induced-seismicity catalogs are generated based on the Gutenberg–Richter relationship for magnitudes and explicit assumed spatial relationship(s) between HF wells and other known features, such as mapped structural corridors. Uncertainties in observed event locations and magnitudes are also considered. Based on 1000 independent realizations for each test scenario, normalized correlation coefficients, Bayesian information criteria and other statistical measures are used to quantify the similarity of synthetic catalogs to the observed seismicity distribution. We applied this approach to induced seismicity associated with HF operations within the Montney Formation, in western Canada. Three hypotheses were tested, each showing a statistically significant improvement over the null hypothesis. A previous machine-learning-based model for Seismogenic Activation Potential (SAP) showed the highest correlation between observed and synthetically generated seismicity catalogs. Our method has been developed using cloud-based computing and is easily adapted to other regions and data types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".