Machine Learning Aids Rapid Assessment of Aftershocks: Application to the 2022–2023 Peace River Earthquake Sequence, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The adoption of machine learning (ML) models has ignited a paradigm shift in seismic analysis, fostering enhanced efficiency in capturing patterns of seismic activity with reduced need for time-consuming user interaction. Here, we investigate automated event detection and extraction of seismic phases using two widely used ML models: EQTransformer and PhaseNet. We applied both the models to four weeks of continuous recordings of aftershocks using a temporary array following the 30 November 2022, ML 5.6 earthquake near Peace River, Alberta, Canada. Both the tools identified >1000 events over the recording period. The aftershocks are located in close proximity to the ML 5.6 mainshock as well as to wastewater disposal operations that were ongoing at the time. Both the methods reveal an aftershock distribution that was not identified by the regional network; however, we find that events detected by PhaseNet have smaller event location errors and better depict subtle fault structures at depth, despite identifying ∼200 events less than EQTransformer. Our results highlight the advantages of using ML models for rapid detection and assessment of seismicity following felt events, which is important for rapidly assessing seismic hazard potential and risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".