MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100428799

and Aftershock Sequence: Constraints on Earthquake Source Parameters and Fault Geometry

2011· article· en· W7100428799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftershockSeismometerMoment tensorFault (geology)EpicenterForeshockMagnitude (astronomy)Intraplate earthquakeSeismic hazard
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

mic zone and was felt by more people than any other earthquake in United States history. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received 148,638 felt reports from 31 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The USGS PAGER system estimates as many as 120,000 people were exposed to shaking intensity levels of IV and greater, with approximately 10,000 exposed to shaking as high as intensity VIII. Both regional and teleseismic moment tensor solutions characterize the earthquake as a northeast-striking reverse fault that nucleated at a depth of approximately 7 2 km. The distri-bution of reported macroseismic intensities is roughly ten times the area of a similarly sized earthquake in the western United States (Horton and Williams, 2012). Near-source and far-field damage reports, which extend as far away as Washington, D.C., (135 km away) and Baltimore, Maryland, (200 km away) are consistent with an earthquake of this size and depth in the eastern United States (EUS). Within the first few days following the earthquake, several government and aca-demic institutions installed 36 portable seismograph stations in the epicentral region, making this among the best-recorded aftershock sequences in the EUS. Based on

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)0.007
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→