MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096599458

Empirical attenuation of ground-motion spectral amplitudes in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United

2004· article· en· W7096599458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudeAttenuationSeismogramRange (aeronautics)Fourier transformFourier analysisSpectral lineShear waves
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A database of 1700 digital seismograms from 186 earthquakes of mag-nitude mN 2.5–5.6 that occurred in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States from 1990 to 2003 was compiled. Maximum-likelihood regression analysis of the database was performed to determine a model for the attenuation of Fourier spectral amplitudes for the shear window, for the vertical and horizontal component of motion, for frequencies from 0.2 to 20 Hz. Fourier amplitudes follow a hinged trilinear attenuation model. Fourier spectral amplitudes decay as R1.3 (where R is hypocentral distance) within 70 km of the source. There is a transition zone from 70 to 140 km as the direct waves are joined by strong postcritical reflections, where the attenuation is described as R0.2; spectral amplitudes actually increase with distance in this range for low frequencies. Beyond 140 km, the attenuation is well described by R0.5, corresponding to geometric spreading in two dimensions. The associated model for the regional quality factor for frequencies greater than 1 Hz can be ex-pressed as Q 893f 032. Q can be better modeled over a wider frequency range (0.2– 20 Hz) by a polynomial expression: log Q 3.052 0.393 log f 0.945 (log f)2

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207