The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan
Abstract
We mapped the minimum magnitude of complete reporting, M c , for Alaska, the western United States, and for the JUNEC earthquake catalog of Japan. Mc was estimated based on its departure from the linear frequency-magnitude relation of the 250 closest earthquakes to grid nodes, spaced 10 km apart. In all catalogs studied, Mc was strongly heterogeneous. In offshore areas the Mc was typically one unit of magnitude higher than onshore. On land also, Mc can vary by one order of magnitude over distance less than 50 km. We recommend that seismicity studies that depend on complete sets of small earthquakes should be limited to areas with similar Mc, or the minimum magnitude for the analysis has to be raised to the highest com- mon value of Mc. We believe that the data quality, as reflected by the Mc level, should be used to define the spatial extent of seismicity studies where Mc plays a role. The method we use calculates the goodness of fit between a power law fit to the data and the observed frequency-magnitude distribution as a function of a lower cutoff of the magnitude data. Mc is defined as the magnitude at which 90% of the data can be modeled by a power law fit. Mc in the 1990s is approximately 1.2 0.4 in most parts of California, 1.8 0.4 in most of Alaska (Aleutians and Panhandle excluded), and at a higher level in the JUNEC catalog for Japan. Various sources, such as ex- plosions and earthquake families beneath volcanoes, can lead to distributions that cannot be fit well by power laws. For the Hokkaido region we demonstrate how neglecting the spatial variability of M c can lead to erroneous assumptions about deviations from self-similarity of earthquake scaling.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Frequency of earthquakes in California*
Gutenberg, B., & Richter, C. F. (1944) · Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · doi:10.1785/bssa0340040185 · Cited by 4,482
17. Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula logN=a-bM and its Confidence Limits
Aki, K. (1965) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · doi:10.15083/0000033631 · Cited by 1,570
The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value
Shi, Y., & Bolt, B. A. (1982) · Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · doi:10.1785/bssa0720051677 · Cited by 668
Teleseismic b values; Or, much ado about 1.0
Frohlich, C., & Davis, S. D. (1993) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/92jb01891 · Cited by 554
Utsu, T. (1965) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 523
Seismicity Analysis through Point-process Modeling: A Review
Ogata, Y. (1999) · pure and applied geophysics · doi:10.1007/s000240050275 · Cited by 412
Utsu, T. (1999) · pure and applied geophysics · doi:10.1007/s000240050276 · Cited by 344
Cited by
Searching for hidden earthquakes in Southern California
Ross, Z. E., Trugman, D. T., Hauksson, E., & Shearer, P. M. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaw6888 · Cited by 331
Ojo, A. O., Kao, H., Jiang, Y., Craymer, M., & Henton, J. (2021) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth · doi:10.1029/2020jb020529 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiemer, S.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
- Published
- 2000-08-01
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 859-869
- ISSN
- 0037-1106 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163379050
- Cited by
- 1,750
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 7.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1785/0119990114
- The paper
- Wiemer, S. (2000). Minimum Magnitude of Completeness in Earthquake Catalogs: Examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.