Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

In the analyzed dataset, plate-interface roughness measured at scales up to 10 km did not show a primary relationship with maximum earthquake potential.

Type OBSERVATIONAL · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 19662

Referenced 103 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 1, viewed 77, shared 24. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Earth science · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 1 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 6 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:09d6736b-4796-8d9a-8a36-966aab73a89c

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.A quoted passage from nature.com was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Related: NARROWS incoming: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The primary study reports the roughness finding and its scale. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly concludes roughness at scales up to 10 km lacks primary control over maximum earthquake potential.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
f1a4df307c40bad2

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

FromRelationshipTo
b161b5dbNARROWSab73a89c

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedyesfd9fa4b5, 7c40bad2, a6288515, 89cd6da2, 934af833, cf821973

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The primary study reports the roughness finding and its scale. 30d71eed

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. f1a4df30

Qualifier: The dataset comprised 35 seismic-reflection profiles across 15 subduction margins. b30b9a3c

Qualifier: Maximum earthquake size was determined from the USGS catalogue within the study area. d8be0bec

Qualifier: The analysis covered 15 globally distributed subduction zones and used a proxy for maximum earthquake magnitude. 9845c398

Qualifier: The authors describe the sample as current best available but call for more 3D observations before broader linkage claims. 699ec096

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
19662APPENDED
19663ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
19676LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24495TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)
25515TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)