↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 28%
Researcher 23 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 62 65%
Engineering 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 15 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,276,643
of 23,524,722 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#20,105
of 127,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,662
of 317,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#130
of 775 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,524,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 317,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 775 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.