MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408860070 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.150217

Monte Carlo Aggregating Method for Radon Precursor-Based Earthquake Parameter Prediction in Java, Indonesia

2025· article· en· W4408860070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wahyu Sukestyastama Putra, Sunarno Sunarno, I Wayan Mustika

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Gadjah Mada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodRadonJavaComputer scienceSeismologyStatisticsGeologyMathematicsPhysicsOperating systemNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a novel method for predicting earthquake parameters using radon as a precursor to address uncertainties and limitations in the dataset.The dataset comprises radon observation data from Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and earthquake records collected from a radon monitoring site and the USGS earthquake database from December 11, 2022, to August 8, 2023.The proposed method was trained on 80% of the dataset, which was utilized to generate a probability distribution for the Monte Carlo process to handle the constraints of limited precursor data.The results from the Monte Carlo simulations were then used to develop a model for predicting earthquake parameters.Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method performs well within a monitoring station's radius of 300 and 400 km.At 300 km, the method outperforms in predicting magnitude, distance, and time, with RMSE values of 0.48, 60.60 km, and 57.85 hours, respectively.At 400 km, it achieves excellent performance with RMSE values of 0.61, 76.29 km, and 46.69 hours.This study shows that the proposed method outperforms benchmark methods in predicting earthquake parameters using radon gas as an earthquake precursor.

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 score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207