Coda Envelope Moment Magnitudes and Source Scaling for Southeastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Although moment magnitude is the preferred magnitude scale for earthquake hazard assessment, it has been traditionally difficult to calculate for small earthquakes using methods such as moment tensor inversion that rely on long-period data. The coda envelope moment magnitude method, which relies on regional calibrations using ground-truth data, has emerged as a viable and stable option. In this study, we undertake a calibration of the region of southern Quebec and eastern Ontario containing three active seismic zones. The calibration enabled us to reduce the threshold for moment magnitude calculation from ∼3.5 to 1.5. This will lead to improved input to the seismic hazard models and a more uniform catalog. It simultaneously reduces the need for magnitude conversions while providing a larger data set for improving the conversion relations. The low attenuation and high apparent stresses of this region led to revisions of the coda calibration tool because some assumptions regarding the range of allowable values for parameters such as window length and stress were not valid for this region. Apparent stresses calculated in this study allow for reliable comparisons to other regions and for improved scaling relations. We see high stresses compared to other regions and evidence for self-similarity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".