MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388627281 · doi:10.1186/s40562-023-00306-6

Statistical characterization of full-margin rupture recurrence for Cascadia subduction zone using event time resampling and Gaussian mixture model

2023· article· en· W4388627281 on OpenAlexafffund
Katsuichiro Goda

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSubductionGeologyGaussianMargin (machine learning)Cluster analysisResamplingSeismologyMixture modelStatistical modelStatisticsAlgorithmTectonicsComputer scienceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Earthquake occurrence modeling of large subduction events involves significant uncertainty, stemming from the scarcity of geological data and inaccuracy of dating techniques. The previous research on statistical modeling of full-margin ruptures of the Cascadia subduction zone attempted to address these issues. However, the adopted resampling method to account for the uncertain marine turbidite age data from the Cascadia subduction zone was not sufficient in the sample size. This study presents a statistical approach based on the Gaussian mixture model applied to significantly larger resampled Cascadia age data. The results suggest that the 3-component Gaussian mixture model outperforms the 2-component Gaussian mixture model and the 1-component renewal models by capturing the long gap and short-term clustering. The developed Gaussian mixture model is well suited to apply to probabilistic seismic and tsunami hazard analysis and the calculation of long-term probability of the future full-margin Cascadia events by considering the elapsed time since the last event.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207