Identifying probable fault planes in the stable continental regions of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<!--!introduction!--> Seismic hazard assessment has advanced beyond relying solely on magnitude recurrence rates to incorporating additional parameters, such as faults and deformation rates. In the stable craton of Canada, active faults have been difficult to identify as there is only one earthquake with a known surface rupture (northern Quebec, 1989). Additional sources of information, such as GNSS and INSAR, have thus far been of limited value for hazard assessment in this region because of poor spatial coverage and the relatively modest sizes of recent earthquakes. Nevertheless, the region comprises several active seismic zones with well recorded earthquakes and large earthquakes have occurred historically. Building on an initial study of the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, statistical analyses of focal mechanisms focusing on modal values (e.g. Salvado-Gálvez et al. 2020) in all seismically active regions of southeastern Canada and the eastern Canadian Arctic are applied to determine probable fault planes. In the Canadian craton, this method has been successful in determining strike direction and dip angles but the results for dip direction have been largely equivocal. The results, however, have been useful for developing weighting schemes for incorporating dip directions into the hazard assessment. Additionally, relocations of active aftershock sequences in some seismic zones provide information about fault orientations. Although the impetus of this study is to provide input to future Canadian seismic hazard models, the results will also provide input to other research topics, such as associating earthquakes with actual faults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".