Investigation of the Effect of Integrated Offset, GPS, and InSAR Data in the Stochastic Source Modeling of the 2002 Denali Earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effect of geological field measurement (offset), global positioning system (GPS), and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) data on the estimation of the co-seismic earthquake displacements of the 2002 Denali earthquake. The analysis is conducted using stochastic source modeling. Uncertainties associated with each dataset limit their effectiveness in source model selection and raise questions about the adequate number of datasets and their type for reliable source estimation. To address these questions, stochastic source models with heterogeneous earthquake slip distributions are synthesized using the von Kármán wavenumber spectrum and statistical scaling relationships. The surface displacements of the generated stochastic sources are obtained using the Okada method. The surface displacements are compared with the available datasets (i.e., offset, GPS, and InSAR) individually and in an integrated form. The results indicate that the performance of stochastic source generation can be significantly improved in the case of using GPS data and in the integrated case. Overall, based on the case study of the 2002 Denali earthquake, the combined use of all available datasets increases the robustness of the stochastic source modeling method in characterizing surface displacement. However, GPS data contribute more than InSAR and offset data in producing reliable source models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".