A deep‐learning‐based model for quality assessment of earthquake‐induced ground‐motion records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High‐quality earthquake ground‐motion records are required for various applications in engineering and seismology; however, quality assessment of ground‐motion records is time‐consuming if done manually and poorly handled by automation with conventional mathematical functions. Machine learning is well suited to this problem, and a supervised deep‐learning‐based model was developed to estimate the quality of all types of ground‐motion records through training on 1096 example records from earthquakes in New Zealand, which is an active tectonic environment with crustal and subduction earthquakes. The model estimates a quality and minimum usable frequency for each record component and can handle one‐, two‐, or three‐component records. The estimations were found to match manually labeled test data well, and the model was able to accurately replicate manual quality classifications from other published studies based on the requirements of three different engineering applications. The component‐level quality and minimum usable frequency estimations provide flexibility to assess record quality based on diverse requirements and make the model useful for a range of potential applications. We apply the model to enable automated record classification for 43,398 ground motions from GeoNet as part of the development of a new curated ground‐motion database for New Zealand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".