↓ Skip to main content

The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: A meta-analysis
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2014
DOI 10.1038/srep04099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud Mignan

Abstract

The hypothesis that earthquake foreshocks have a prognostic value is challenged by simulations of the normal behaviour of seismicity, where no distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks can be made. In the former view, foreshocks are passive tracers of a tectonic preparatory process that yields the mainshock (i.e., loading by aseismic slip) while in the latter, a foreshock is any earthquake that triggers a larger one. Although both processes can coexist, earthquake prediction is plausible in the first case while virtually impossible in the second. Here I present a meta-analysis of 37 foreshock studies published between 1982 and 2013 to show that the justification of one hypothesis or the other depends on the selected magnitude interval between minimum foreshock magnitude m(min) and mainshock magnitude M. From this literature survey, anomalous foreshocks are found to emerge when m(min) < M - 3.0. These results suggest that a deviation from the normal behaviour of seismicity may be observed only when microseismicity is considered. These results are to be taken with caution since the 37 studies do not all show the same level of reliability. These observations should nonetheless encourage new research in earthquake predictability with focus on the potential role of microseismicity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 78 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 30%
Researcher 21 27%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 52 66%
Engineering 5 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,070,367
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#17,728
of 93,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,512
of 267,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 93,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them