Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
7
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
7 results for “SCEC”
SCEC Broadband Platform Release 22.4.0 Validation Data
<p>This package includes the set of validation plots generated with the Broadband Platform Release 22.4.</p> <p>Fabio Silva, Kevin Milner, & Philip Maechling. (2022). SCECcode/bbp: Broadband Platform Release v22.4.0 (v22.4.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7062972</p> <p>The following folders include:</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-a - Broadband validation runs using ground motions from 17 historical events.</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-a-all - Broadband validation runs using ground motions from 17 historical events (same as above, but includes additional GoF plots such as maps and distance)</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-part-b - Broadband verification runs against NGA-West 2 GMPEs.</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-converge - Convergence plots for each method and event</p> <p>2022-08-30-bbp-tables - Summary tables for each method, along with aggregate results from all methods/events per distance and period range. Also includes Dreger figure 3 plots (see references below for more information)</p>
SCEC Community Fault Model (CFM)
<h1>Introduction</h1> <p>The Statewide California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Community Fault Model (CFM) is an object-oriented, fully three-dimensional geometric representation of active faults in California and adjacent offshore basins. For each fault object, the CFM provides triangulated surface representations (t-surfs) in several resolutions, fault traces in several different file formats (shape files, GMT plain text, and GoogleEarth kml), and complete metadata including references used to constrain the surfaces. The CFM faults are defined based on available data including surface traces, seismicity, seismic reflection profiles, well data, geologic cross sections, and various other types of data and models. The CFM serves SCEC as a unified resource for physics-based fault systems modeling, strong ground-motion prediction, probabilistic seismic hazards assessment (e.g., the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model), and many other uses. Together with the Community Velocity Model (CVM-H 15.1.0), the CFM comprises SCEC's Unified Structural Representation of the Southern California crust and upper mantle (Shaw et al., 2015).</p> <h1>Current Model Version: CFM 7.0</h1> <p>The current version of the SCEC CFM is version 7.0 (CFM 7.0), which builds on the previous CFM releases and serves as the latest update to Plesch et al. (2007). CFM 7.0 is a significant update as this is the first CFM to cover the entire state of California, spanning the Pacific-North American plate boundary from northern Mexico to the southern Cascadia subduction zone. This latest version has no changes to the southern California portion of the model, but now includes 113 new fault representations in central and northern California in the preferred model. These new central and northern California fault representations will undergo a community evaluation in 2024-2025, therefore, the central and northern California faults should be considered preliminary representations.</p> <p>CFM 7.0 contains three fully-documented sub models: preferred, ruptures, and alternatives. In total, CFM 7.0 comprises the following components: </p> <ol> <li> <p><strong>CFM 7.0 Preferred</strong>: A set of 556 fault objects that constitute the preferred set of active faults. These faults have attained preferred status based on past community evaluations or are new representations.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>CFM 7.0 Ruptures</strong>: A set of 13 fault objects assembled from the CFM 7.0 preferred model that ruptured during selected significant historic events. These are not earthquake source models, but are representations of the entire fault surfaces where a significant historic rupture occurred. This model is intended to indicate which CFM fault objects were involved with selected significant historic ruptures.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>CFM 7.0 Alternatives</strong>: A set of 39 alternative representations where structural differences have been proposed that could potentially significantly impact fault mechanics and associated seismic hazards. These alternative representations were selected based on community rankings following a comprehensive evaluation of the CFM that took place in May of 2022.</p> </li> </ol> <p>Including all sub models, the CFM 7.0 incorporates 608 fully-documented fault objects. If you use the CFM, we would appreciate you citing both Plesch et al. (2007) and the DOI where the archive is stored.</p> <h1>Directory Structure and Contents of the CFM Archive</h1> <p>The CFM archive directory structure is as follows:</p> <p><strong>doc/</strong><br>Documentation and metadata, which include an MS Excel spreadsheet with detailed metadata about each fault surface. Metadata for the preferred, rupture, and alternative models are provided in separate but otherwise identically formatted sheets within the file. All faults contain references to the works that helped to define the 3D fault surface geometry. More information about the metadata columns is provided in doc/README.txt</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/</strong><br><strong>obj/ruptures/</strong><br><strong>obj/alternatives/</strong><br>These directories contain the model components for the preferred, rupture, and alternative models, respectively. Each model contains an identical directory structure, which is described below using the preferred model as an example.</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/native/</strong><br>The CFM preferred fault surfaces in gocad tsurf format using the native mesh. The native mesh uses a variable mesh resolution. Smaller triangles generally indicate where a fault is well-constrained by data. All tsurf files are provided in UTM zone 11 using the NAD27 datum (EPSG:26711).</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/500m/</strong><br>The CFM preferred fault surfaces with a semi-regularized mesh of ~500m resolution in gocad tsurf format. All tsurf files are provided in UTM zone 11 using the NAD27 datum (EPSG:26711).</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/1000m/</strong><br>The CFM preferred fault surfaces with a semi-regularized mesh of ~1000m resolution in gocad tsurf format. All tsurf files are provided in UTM zone 11 using the NAD27 datum (EPSG:26711).</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/2000m/</strong><br>The CFM preferred fault surfaces with a semi-regularized mesh of ~2000m resolution in gocad tsurf format. All tsurf files are provided in UTM zone 11 using the NAD27 datum (EPSG:26711).</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/traces/</strong><br>Fault traces and upper tip lines (for blind faults) of the CFM preferred faults. While the CFM is a 3D model, it is often useful to make map-based visualizations of the model. The traces and blind faults are provided in several different formats described below.</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/traces/gmt/<br></strong>Fault traces and blind faults in Generic Mapping Tools multiple segment file ASCII format (i.e., plain text).<br> .lonLat - Longitude/Latitude coordinates (WGS84 datum)<br> .utm - UTM zone 11 NAD27 datum (EPSG:26711)</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/traces/kml/</strong><br>Fault traces and blind faults in Google Earth .kml format (WGS84 datum). The kml files also contain selected metadata as attributes which can be imported into QGIS. When a fault trace is clicked on in the Google Earth interface, a mini-webpage with metadata information will pop up.</p> <p><strong>obj/preferred/traces/shp/</strong><br>Fault traces and blind faults in GIS shapefile format (longitude/latitude coordinates, WGS84 datum).</p> <h1>CFM Contributors</h1> <p>The current and past versions of the CFM would not be possible without contributions from numerous SCEC community members. We would like to thank the following CFM contributors:</p> <p>Christine Benson, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/bbryant">William Bryant</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/scarena">Sara Carena</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/cooke">Michele Cooke</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/dolan">James Dolan</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jessaroni">Jessica Don</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/fuis">Gary Fuis</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/gath">Eldon Gath</a>, Russell Graymer, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jhubbard">Judith Hubbard</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/sjanecke">Susanne Janecke</a>, Sam Johnson, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/ylevy">Yuval Levy</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/lgrant">Lisa Grant Ludwig</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/hauksson">Egill Hauksson</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/tjordan">Thomas Jordan</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/marc">Marc Kamerling</a>, Keith Knudsen, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/mrlegg">Mark Legg</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/lindvall">Scott Lindvall</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/harold">Harold Magistrale</a>, James Lienkaemper, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/marshallst">Scott Marshall</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/nicholson">Craig Nicholson</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/niemi">Nathan Niemi</a>, Stu Nishenko, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/oskin">Michael Oskin</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/perry">Sue Perry</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/planansky">George Planansky</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/plesch">Andreas Plesch</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/rockwell">Thomas Rockwell</a>, David Schwartz, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jshaw">John Shaw</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/pshearer">Peter Shearer</a>, Bob Simpson, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/sorlien">Christopher Sorlien</a>, M. Peter Süss, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/suppe">John Suppe</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/treiman">Jerry Treiman</a>, Jeff Unruh, Janet Watt, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/wolfe_franklin">Franklin Wolfe</a>, Chris Wills, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/yeats">Robert Yeats</a>, and every colleague that has participated in a CFM community evaluation. We could not make the CFM without this community effort.</p> <h1>CFM Evaluators</h1> <p>Before assembling CFM 6.0 and subsequently CFM 7.0, a team of SCEC colleagues participated in a rigorous evaluation of CFM 5.3 in April-May of 2022. This evaluation was open to the SCEC community and focused on 23 critical fault representations where different proposed interpretations have the potential to significantly affect seismic hazards. This evaluation resulted in 14 new fault representations in the CFM 6.0 preferred model. The lower ranked representations are now provided in the CFM alternatives. We would like to thank the following CFM evaluators for volunteering their time and expertise to this process:</p> <p><a href="https://central.scec.org/user/sakciz">Sinan Akçiz</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/scarena">Sara Carena</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/cooke">Michele Cooke</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/dawson">Tim Dawson</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jessaroni">Jessica Don</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/ajelliott">Austin Elliot</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/frost">Erik Frost</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/fuis">Gary Fuis</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/aganas">Athanassios Ganas</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/gath">Eldon Gath</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/alexhatem">Alex Hatem</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/sjanecke">Susanne Janecke</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/marc">Marc Kamerling</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/christos">Christodoulos Kyriakopoulos</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/mrlegg">Mark Legg</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/kluttrell">Karen Luttrell</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/madden">Chris Madugo</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/marshallst">Scott Marshall</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/meigsa">Andrew Meigs</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/nicholson">Craig Nicholson</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/nonderdo">Nate Onderdonk</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/absrp">Alba Rodríguez Padilla</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/plesch">Andreas Plesch</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/scharer">Kate Scharer</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jshaw">John Shaw</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/sorlien">Chris Sorlien</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/wolfe_franklin">Franklin Wolfe</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/yule">Doug Yule</a>, <a href="https://central.scec.org/user/jzachariasen">Judy Zachariasen</a>.</p> <p> </p>
SCEC Community Thermal Model (CTM)
<p>The CTM provides estimates of temperatures and thermal properties of the southern California lithosphere. It is shared as a download archive with data and tools organized into three folders: components and metadata, a Google Colab notebook query tool with associated files, and an alternative (Shinevar et al., 2018) thermal model. README files in each directory describe the contents in detail. </p> <p>Please see <a href="https://www.scec.org/research/ctm">https://www.scec.org/research/ctm</a> for more information.</p>
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Community Geodetic Model (CGM)
<p><strong>Overview</strong></p><p>Measuring accurately the relative movement of the surface of the Earth is a critical constraint on the slow and broad tectonic loading and unloading to which faults respond, and is one of the few observations of the solid Earth that may be made directly without inference. High-precision geodetic observations, such as from Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), which includes the Global Positioning System (GPS), and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR), allow measurement of fault motions between, during and in the aftermath of earthquakes and other related tectonic phenomena, densely in both space and time.</p><p>The Community Geodetic Model (CGM) provides velocities and time series of observed points on the Earth's surface over Southern California using data from a number of contributing researchers, institutions and analysis centers. The GNSS products provide high temporal resolution (nominally daily measurement points for continuous stations) in three dimensions at specific observation sites and the InSAR products provide high spatial resolution (approximately one point per tens of m on the ground, depending on exact specifications of data and processing). Combined, they provide the ability to study crustal deformation over a wide range of distances and periods.</p><p>The CGM differs from other<a href="https://www.scec.org/research/cxm"> SCEC Community Models</a> in that it is constantly extending with time as new data are acquired daily, so it is not static.</p><p>The CGM version 1 (2016; <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4926528">doi:10.5281/zenodo.4926528</a>) was a collection of time-independent (velocity-only) geodetic products gathered from published papers. The GNSS velocities were then combined and modeled by a Working Group researching methods and contributing interpolated deformation fields. The main goal of the CGM version 2 is to add time-dependent (time series) products to both the GNSS and InSAR products. For the GNSS, this is done by ingesting survey and (mostly) continuous time series from five analysis centers in the U.S.: the Geodetic Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience (GAGE); the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory (NGL) at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR); the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Scripps Orbital and Permanent Array Center (SOPAC) contributions to the MEaSUREs ESESES project; and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Like the various contributions to the CGMv1 GNSS velocities, these time series are rigorously adjusted to be self-consistent, before a weighted mean is calculated to produce the consensus products. Much of the InSAR contribution is a consensus from research by the SCEC community within the CGM (InSAR) Working Group, whose individual contributions are listed below and in more detail in the README.txt file in the top directory of the archive. The CGMv2 is therefore a "union" or "superset" of survey and continuous GNSS and InSAR time series.</p><p>Please see<a href="https://www.scec.org/research/cgm"> https://www.scec.org/research/cgm</a> for more information.</p><p><strong>Version: CGMv2.0.0</strong></p><p>This is the second major release of the CGM (version 2.0.0) and is distributed as a zip-file. See below and in the README.txt file for information about the directory structure and contents of the entire zipped archive. Much of the SCEC5 activity was focused on the assembly of GNSS and InSAR time series for measuring temporally variable motions, expanding the CGMv1 with the time dimension. The CGMv2.0.0 is a time-dependent set of products, consisting of time series and velocities of the Earth's surface measured by GNSS and InSAR.</p><p><strong>Directory Structure and Contents</strong></p><p><strong>data/gnss/pos/</strong><br>The CGMv2.0.0 GNSS time series in <a href="https://www.unavco.org/data/gps-gnss/derived-products/docs/NOTICE-TO-DATA-PRODUCT-USERS-GPS-2013-03-15.pdf">"pos" format</a> (plain text), relative to various reference frames described below. Header lines in each file provide information about the nominal reference coordinates and data columns. Files named "*.wmrss_*" are the continuous stations (<i>w</i>eighted <i>m</i>ean with <i>r</i>e<i>s</i>caled <i>s</i>igma) and files named "*.final_" are the survey sites.</p><p><strong>data/gnss/pos/igb14/</strong> The International GNSS Service's (IGS's) <a href="https://lists.igs.org/pipermail/igsmail/2020/007917.html">revised realization of ITRF2014</a></p><p><strong>data/gnss/pos/nam14/ </strong>North America defined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx136">Altamimi et al.'s (2017)</a> ITRF2014 plate motion model</p><p><strong>data/gnss/pos/pcf14/ </strong>The Pacific defined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx136">Altamimi et al.'s (2017)</a> ITRF2014 plate motion model</p><p><strong>data/gnss/pos/nam17/ </strong>North America defined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JB015257">Kreemer et al. (2018)</a></p><p><strong>data/gnss/vel/</strong><br>The CGMv2.0.0 GNSS velocities in a CSV file similar to <a href="https://www.unavco.org/data/gps-gnss/derived-products/docs/NOTICE-TO-DATA-PRODUCT-USERS-GPS-2013-03-15.pdf">GAGE's "vel" format</a> (plain text), relative to the same reference frames described above. Header lines in each file provide information about the data columns.</p><p><strong>data/insar/</strong><br>The CGMv2.0.0 InSAR line-of-sight consensus time series and velocities for four ESA Sentinel-1 tracks (ascending tracks 64 and 166, and descending tracks 71 and 173) over Southern California, in an <a href="https://github.com/kmaterna/InSAR_CGM_readers_writers#cgm-insar-hdf5-structure">HDF5 format designed for the CGM</a>. A description of and reader for the HDF5 files may be found <a href="https://github.com/kmaterna/InSAR_CGM_readers_writers">here</a>.</p><p><strong>data/insar/contrib/</strong><br>Individual contributions to the InSAR time series and velocity products, as described below and in more detail in the top-level README.txt file.</p><p><strong>Contributors</strong></p><p>The GNSS time series are a weighted mean, after restoration of global scale if processed using Gipsy (JPL, NGL/UNR and USGS) and self-consistent alignment of reference frame, of the following GNSS analysis centers, whose products are publicly available at the embedded hyperlinks:</p><ul><li>The <a href="https://www.unavco.org/data/gps-gnss/derived-products/derived-products.html">Geodetic Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience (GAGE)</a> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000529">Herring et al., 2016</a>)</li><li>The <a href="http://geodesy.unr.edu/">Nevada Geodetic Laboratory</a> at the University of Nevada, Reno (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EO104623">Blewitt et al., 2018</a>)</li><li>NASA's <a href="http://garner.ucsd.edu/pub/solutions/gipsy">Jet Propulsion Laboratory contribution</a> to the <a href="http://sopac-csrc.ucsd.edu/index.php/measures-2/">MEaSUREs ESESES Project</a></li><li><a href="http://sopac-csrc.ucsd.edu/">SOPAC</a>'s <a href="http://garner.ucsd.edu/pub/measuresESESES_products/Timeseries/">contribution</a> to the <a href="http://sopac-csrc.ucsd.edu/index.php/measures-2/">MEaSUREs ESESES Project</a></li><li>The <a href="https://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/gps">United States Geological Survey</a> (<a href="https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160204">Murray and Svarc, 2017</a>)</li><li><a href="https://www.scec.org/user/zshen">Zheng-Kang Shen's (UCLA)</a> <a href="http://scec.ess.ucla.edu/~zshen/cgm/">survey time series</a></li></ul><p>Z.-K. Shen processed the raw data from the <a href="https://service.scedc.caltech.edu/gps/">SCEC survey-mode GPS data archive</a> to provide the corresponding time series and velocities. A. Gonzalez Ortega provided processed time series from <a href="https://regnom.cicese.mx/">CICESE's REGNOM network of continuous GNSS stations</a>. M. Floyd and T. Herring designed the download, alignment and combination of the publicly available continuous GNSS archives, listed above, in various reference frames.</p><p>Contributions from individuals and institutions within the SCEC community to the CGM (InSAR) products are:</p><ul><li>K. Wang contributed time series and velocity solutions</li><li>K. Guns and X. Xu contributed time series and velocity solutions</li><li>Z. Liu contributed time series and velocity solutions</li><li>S. Sangha, M. Govorcin and D. Bekaert contributed time series and velocity solutions</li><li>G. Funning contributed time series and velocity solutions</li><li>E. Tymofyeyeva calculated the combination of contributed solutions to generate the consensus product</li><li>K. Materna contributed time series and velocity solutions, and wrote the translation tools for converting to and from HDF5 format, as designed by all InSAR contributors listed immediately above plus M. Floyd</li></ul><p>Three groups (K. Guns and X. Xu; Z. Liu; and S. Sangha, M. Govorcin and D. Bekaert) independently processed interferograms from common raw datasets using different processing approaches.</p><p>E. Tymofyeyeva coordinated and led the InSAR Working Group.</p><p>M. Floyd coordinated and led the wider CGM Working Group.</p><p>All contributed to the design of the HDF5 format in which the InSAR products are distributed.</p>
SCEC Community Stress Model (CSM)
<p><a href="https://www.scec.org/science/csm" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>The SCEC Community Stress Model (CSM)</strong></a> is a group of models of stress and stressing rate within the California crust and lithosphere, compiled by the CSM Working Group of the <a href="https://www.scec.org">Statewide California Earthquake Center (SCEC)</a>.</p> <p>“Stress” models are models of the 3-D symmetric stress tensor (6 components), describing the forces present within a continuous volume. “Stressing rate” models are models of how the 3-D stress tensor changes over time, for example due to stress accumulating along a tectonic plate boundary.</p> <p>The CSM is one of several <a href="https://www.scec.org/science/cem">SCEC Community Earth Models</a>, but unlike some, it does not attempt to provide a single consensus model of stress or stressing rate. Instead, the intention is to compile a set of models of stress and stressing rate. The current version of the CSM includes 22 distinct models: 14 of stress, and 8 of stressing rate. The model techniques, assumptions, and input datasets vary, so no two models provide the exact same result. In some cases, the contributed models have been published in a peer reviewed journal. In other cases, the methods or datasets were previously published in a peer reviewed journal, but the exact contributed model is not published.</p> <p>For the fourteen stress models, the orientation of the stress tensor is mostly derived from the inversion of earthquake focal mechanisms. Eleven of the models are based solely on earthquake focal mechanisms, and thus do not provide information on stress magnitude. One model provides an estimate of the deviatoric stress required to support existing topography. Two models provide an estimate of the full absolute stress tensor, based on forward physics-based modeling of the tectonic loading of the southern California fault system. Note that even when sampled “on” a major fault surface, these model values should be regarded as estimates of stress in the adjacent continuum rather than estimates from “within” fault gouge zones.</p> <p>The eight stressing rate models are based either on geodetic data or on kinematic or mechanical models constrained by such data. Some are based on estimates of velocity field or strain rate that are then translated into stressing rate. Others involve forward physics-based modeling of tectonic loading of the fault system, but focus on deriving stressing rate rather than the absolute stress tensor.</p> <p>Each of the models was contributed by an author or group of authors, the earliest in 2012, the most recent in 2024, and some models were taken directly from the literature. Values in the crust (≤ 25 km depth) are reported for a uniform grid of latitude and longitude points, covering all of California at a resolution of ~2 km (0.0180º latitude, 0.0217º longitude), for a total of 160,663 unique points. Values in the deeper lithosphere (≥ 50 km) are reported for a uniform grid with a resolution of ~5 km (0.0450º latitude, 0.0543º longitude), for a total of 25,666 unique points. Depths are reported every 2 km from 1 km to 25 km depth, and then every 25 km to 100 km depth, for a total of 16 unique depths. Points that lie outside the defined volume for a particular model, given its assumptions and available data, are omitted from that model’s file.</p> <p>The model contributions include the 6-component cartesian stress tensor (in East, North, Up, tension positive) at each grid point, and then several values calculated from the tensor components that describe different aspects of the orientation or magnitude of the 3-D tensor. For visualization of these models, see the CSM web explorer on the SCEC CSM homepage, <a href="https://www.scec.org/science/csm">https://www.scec.org/science/csm</a>.</p> <p>Between 2012 and 2016, the CSM working group undertook a series of comparison exercises to assess consistency among southern California stress and stressing rate models that were available at that time. Broadly, the stress models tended to agree on stress axis orientations but not on magnitudes. Stressing rate models tend to agree along major fault segments, but disagree in secondary fault or off-fault areas. For details see the archived homepage for SCEC CSM v2023, <a href="https://southern.scec.org/research/csm">https://southern.scec.org/research/csm</a>.</p> <p><strong>KEY TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS</strong></p> <p>In 2024, as SCEC transitioned to a focus on California statewide, we compiled existing estimates of stress orientation from published literature for regions outside the original Southern California focus area. We also developed new statewide stressing rate models, based on recent estimates of strain rate across the western United States. These resulted in 11 additional contributions to the CSM.</p>
aCGH data from SCEC and corresponding normal samples
GEO Series GSE111298. Homo sapiens. 3 samples. Type: Genome variation profiling by genome tiling array.
Expression data from SCEC and corresponding normal samples
GEO Series GSE111044. Homo sapiens. 6 samples. Type: Expression profiling by array.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.