Changes in stress revealed by seismic rate changes at El Chichón and Tacaná volcanoes, following the 8 September 2017, Mw8.2 Chiapas, Mexico, earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In certain circumstances, such as the imminent eruption of a volcano, it has been suggested that "large" and "near-field" earthquakes have the capacity to "accelerate", "clock-advance", or "trigger" the eruption. In contrast, these earthquakes have no effect, or a minimal effect, on a volcano that is far from erupting. Changes in earthquake rates are frequently used as a stress-meter. In this study, we compared seismic activity beneath the two most active volcanoes in Chiapas, Mexico: El Chichón and Tacaná, before and after the 8 September 2017, M w 8.2 earthquake. This comparison can provide insight into volcanic stress changes and proximity (or not) to an eruption. At El Chichón, seismicity increased a few days after the 2017 earthquake and remained elevated for five weeks before returning to pre-earthquake levels. At Tacaná, seismicity increased 15 weeks after the 2017 earthquake and remained elevated for two weeks before returning to pre-earthquake levels. This timing difference may be related to the type of fluid involved in generating the swarms: water at El Chichón and magma at Tacaná. Although the presence of volcanic seismicity indicates that El Chichón and Tacaná are seismically active, minor changes in amplitude and duration following the 2017 earthquake suggest minimal stress changes at these volcanoes. This is consistent with the absence of eruptions in 2017-2018. Previous field observations identified zones of hydrothermal manifestations at both volcanoes. These zones coincide with the locations of hydrothermal seismicity that we identified.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".