Apparent Breaks in Scaling in the Earthquake Cumulative Frequency-Magnitude Distribution: Fact or Artifact?

By I. Main. 2000

102 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A review and new insights on the estimation of the b-valueand its uncertainty (2003, methodology): “…employed in many recent scientific papers (Pacheco and Sykes, 1992; Pacheco et al., 1992; Karnik and Klima, 1993; Okal and Kirby, 1995; Scholz, 1997; Triep and Sykes, 1997; Main, 2000), the use of the least squares technique does not have any statistical foundation (e.g., Page, 1968; Bender, 1983).”
Aftershock Zone Scaling (2002, result): “This conjecture is not supported by recent studies of earthquake size distribution (Main, 2000; Kagan, 2002a,b; Leonard et al., 2001).”
Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results (2002, background): “This confirms the results of Kagan (1994), Sornette et al. (1996), Main (2000) and Leonard et al. (2001): there is no observable scaling break in the moment– frequency relation in mid-size magnitude ranges.”
Characterization of the Frequency of Extreme Earthquake Events by the Generalized Pareto Distribution (2000, background): “In the case of earthquake catalogs, such a deviation is usually related to the finite thickness of the seismogenic layers (although no direct evidence of this statement is demonstrated in the existing literature (Sornette et al., 1996; Main, 2000)).”