Letter to the Editors Microseisms in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some aspects of Rayleigh wave propagation on the North American continent have been deduced from the observations of the directions of approach in the Alberta microseisms. The results are compared to work done elsewhere in North America. The directions of approach were determined by means of a method developed by Jensen (1958). The method is based on particle motion analysis at a single station, and it yields the direction of approach of Rayleigh modes with retrograde particle motion, provided that such modes dominate the vertical recording. By means of an approximation formula given by Jensen (1961), the method also yields an estimate of the probable error of each single determination. This estimate will generally increase when there is interference from other waves, excepting Love waves from the same direction. The directions of approach were determined from the long-period seismograms recorded at the University of Alberta seismograph station at Edmonton during 1963 July and August. The complete list of observations was given by Hjortenberg (1963). From this list Tables 1 and 2 were prepared. Table 1 presents the observa-tions from the six isolated microseismic storms that occurred. Table 2 presents ten samples selected a t random from the intervals between the storms. The tables show the range of measured periods, the distribution into octants of the directions of approach, and the probable error. Each probable error quoted is the largest esti-mate obtained. Table 1 Numbers of obseraations of directions of approach at Edmonton. Microseismic storms, ordered according to their period range Range of Probable periods Octant error
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.011 |
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".