Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results

By Y. Kagan. 2002

350 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/09eb723e85540fa5ed4961dc0ee0cdccfe20d1a3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Geophysics

Citations in the corpus

Probabilistic Analysis of Tsunami Hazards* (2006, methodology): “To determine tsunami recurrence rates and probabilities, a seismic zonation scheme is developed based on fault structure and tectonics that can include both far-field and local sources (e.g., Ward, 1994; Kagan, 2002a).”
Fitting and goodness-of-fit test of non-truncated and truncated power-law distributions (2012, methodology): “We take the Centroid Moment Tensor (CMT) worldwide catalog analyzed by Kagan (2002) and by Main et al. (2008), including now data from January 1977 to December 2010, and apply our statistical method to it.”
Data‐driven spatial b value estimation with applications to California seismicity: To b or not to b (2015, background): “…that the b value is constant in both space and time and that the observed fluctuations are artifacts resulting from undersampling, magnitude errors, and nonhomogenous detection capabilities [Shi and Bolt, 1982; Frohlich and Davis, 1993; Kagan, 1999b, 2002, 2010; Amorese et al., 2010].”
Bayesian Estimation of the Spatially Varying Completeness Magnitude of Earthquake Catalogs (2010, methodology): “Kagan (2002) argued that the Ogata and Katsura model (Ogata and Katsura, 1993) should be used with caution because it assumes statistical stability of the unreliable, only partially detected range of the data set and a particular parametric detection probability rate.”
Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time‐Independent Model (2014, background): “…the coupling coefficients implied by geodetic deformation in broad regions are subject to considerable uncertainty, with values between 20% and 100% being cited in the literature (e.g., Ward, 1998; Kagan, 2002a,b; Jenny et al., 2004; Masson et al., 2005; Pancha et al., 2006; Rontogianni, 2008).”
A homogeneous earthquake catalogue for Turkey (2021, background): “These sampling parameters are sufficient to avoid erroneous statistical results for the b value and Mc due to under-sampling and non-homogenous subsets (Amorese et al., 2010; Kagan, 1999, 2002, 2010; Kamer and Hiemer, 2013; Shi and Bolt, 1982).”
Tohoku earthquake: a surprise? (2011, methodology): “…scalar seismic moment: (a) the truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) or equivalently truncated Pareto distribution, in which the upper magnitude parameter is the maximum magnitude, and (b) the gamma distribution (Kagan, 2002a; 2002b), in which the upper magnitude parameter is the corner magnitude mcg.”
Seismic moment distribution revisited: II. Moment conservation principle (2002, background): “1 I N T R O D U C T I O N This paper is a companion paper to Kagan (2002) hereafter called MOMS.”