Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28924175›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

The epistemic and aleatory uncertainties of the ETAS-type models: an application to the Central Italy seismicity.

A M Lombardi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

A M LombardiIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy. annamaria.lombardi@ingv.it.ORCID 0000-0002-8326-7135

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stochastic models provide quantitative evaluations about the occurrence of earthquakes. A basic component of this type of models are the uncertainties in defining main features of an intrinsically random process. Even if, at a very basic level, any attempting to distinguish between types of uncertainty is questionable, an usual way to deal with this topic is to separate epistemic uncertainty, due to lack of knowledge, from aleatory variability, due to randomness. In the present study this problem is addressed in the narrow context of short-term modeling of earthquakes and, specifically, of ETAS modeling. By mean of an application of a specific version of the ETAS model to seismicity of Central Italy, recently struck by a sequence with a main event of Mw6.5, the aleatory and epistemic (parametric) uncertainty are separated and quantified. The main result of the paper is that the parametric uncertainty of the ETAS-type model, adopted here, is much lower than the aleatory variability in the process. This result points out two main aspects: an analyst has good chances to set the ETAS-type models, but he may retrospectively describe and forecast the earthquake occurrences with still limited precision and accuracy.

Identifiers

PMID28924175
PMCPMC5603549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.