Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the definition, seismology is a science that studies the processes and causes of seismic phenomena and the structure of the Earth, i.e. a scientific discipline that studies the movement of blocks of rocks of the Earth’s crust and mantle and related phenomena. Seismology conducts research in the following areas and is designed to scientifically explain two main issues: 1) Study of the nature of seismic phenomena and the internal structure of the Earth. Why, how and where do seismic impacts occur? 2) Protecting humanity from the catastrophic consequences of seismic events. Is it possible to predict seismic impacts? Like any other scientific discipline, seismology is obliged to follow the laws of science and its fundamental principles. This article is devoted to the description of violations of the fundamental laws of science committed by seismologists in the study of seismic processes and raises the question of compliance of the stated research directions with the current level of development of sciences. Answering point No. 1, regarding the structure of the Earth, it is possible to recognize some successes of seismology, which nevertheless cause great doubts in the scientific community of geophysicists, because if the stratigraphic data of ultra-deep wells often refute [1] the conclusions made by seismologists on the structure of the Earth’s crust at shallow depth, then to assert something unambiguously about the structure of the mantle and at the present stage, seismology cannot. Answering the main questions of seismology, why seismic phenomena occur, and how earthquake energy is formed, seismologists have not had, and have not. Answering point No. 2, we can confidently say that in the matter of forecasting seismic phenomena, seismology has not advanced one iota over the past century, and as seismologists have been confused in the search for earthquake prediction algorithms, they are also confused without any hope of success. All that modern seismology can “boast” is the theory of Elastic recoil [2], the absurdity of which does not cause any doubt among the progressive part of geophysicists. But, the fact that most of the leading scientists-seismologists continue to piously believe the conclusions of the Elastic Recoil theory puts seismology in a humiliating position, because Mr. Reid’s theory is the clearest example of a false theory based on scientific incompetence of scientists, a model of brazen violation of the fundamental laws of science and the foundation of false and ignorant conclusions. Based on the results achieved, or rather on their absence, we regret to draw a sad conclusion: modern seismology is in the deepest decline, the cause of which is the incompetence of researchers as a result of their catastrophically low level of academic training, who stuff the scientific community with scientific geophysical rubbish, breeding similar ignoramuses in seismology. We understand that by asserting this, we offend most seismologists, but it is impossible to continue to tolerate this state of affairs in geophysics, because: “Amicus plato, sed magis amica est veritas.” Obviously, the time has come for a new meteorologist, Alfred Wagener [3], who will come and teach seismologists not to guess on coffee grounds, but to investigate seismic processes using the fundamental laws of science. In this article, we not only investigate the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in seismology, but also give our answers to the questions, of why earthquakes occur and how seismic energy is formed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".