MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412494094 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adv6484

Long-term dynamics of earthquake swarms in the Yellowstone caldera

2025· article· en· W4412494094 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. Florez, Bing Q. Li, D. R. Shelly, Mia V. Angulo, Jose Sanabria Gomez

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyCalderaInduced seismicityVolcanoHypocenterEarthquake swarmContext (archaeology)Swarm behaviourPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factors controlling the spatial distribution and temporal evolution of earthquake swarms in volcanic systems remain unclear. We leverage leading-edge deep learning algorithms and a detailed three-dimensional velocity model to construct a 15-year high-resolution earthquake catalog of the Yellowstone caldera region. More than half of the region's earthquakes are clustered into swarm-like families characterized by episodes of hypocenter expansion and migration. Adjacent earthquake swarms, separated by long quiescent periods, are found to be a dominant feature. We suggest that these swarms are controlled by the interplay between slowly diffusing aqueous fluids and rapid episodic fluid injections, which may result from the breaking of permeability seals. Our analyses also indicate that clustered seismicity beneath the caldera occurs on relatively immature, rougher fault structures, compared to more planar faults outside. Our results provide additional context for understanding seismicity in hydrothermal systems, highlighting the key role played by long-term fluid diffusion processes in driving the occurrence of earthquake swarms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207