dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Methods From SURE 2020 to a robust database for FDHA modelling. SURE database is constructed from maps of rupture traces and tables of observation points from various sources. We have combined data of a single event from different sources when available, and brought together data of various format. Maps of different sources were georeferenced as accurately as possible, using also the satellite imagery. For the sake of the coherency of SURE database, the rupture traces were matched to the observation points given with longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates. The events chosen to SURE database cover a rather wide range of magnitude and kinematics. The database structure is designed to host all the parameters controlling the surface rupture pattern and the inputs of the surface geology, but these are largely unfilled in the current release due to lack of original data.
The cases in the current release of SURE database (SURE 2. 0) are the ones of the previous release 2 revised, accompanied by the dataset of reverse earthquakes  4  and some new normal and strike-slip earthquakes not published before in this format. The cases included in the first release of the SURE database have been re-evaluated in detail for their completeness, accuracy, and consistency. A quality check has been performed to all the events in the database, and even if the resulting databases have some differences, this part of the work was aligned with the work of Fault Displacement Hazard Initiative (FDHI) database  5. Case completeness was evaluated with respect to good quality data available: several cases, which in SURE 2020 database were compiled from a single bibliographical source were integrated with data from other sources.
The accuracy of the measurement position was assumed higher than the one of the rupture traces, thus rupture trace accuracy may have been increased by moving the rupture traces or their vertices to points of measurements. Mismatching between points and traces can be caused by several reasons, including coordinates' accuracy issues between rupture trace shapefiles and point coordinates given in tables (e. g. , number of decimals), variety of data sources and the mapping referencing used (for several cases multiple sources by various working groups were utilized), mapping scale used by the first-hand authors, or errors in traces in the original papers. The major changes and updates, including the reasoning behind the decision-making, to the surface faulting data in SURE 2. 0 compared to the previous version are detailed in the Database file Notes.
txt. New and updated content. The SURE 2. 0 database contains data from 50 crustal earthquakes (hypocentre depth ≤ 25 km), of which 20 occurred in the US, 5 in Australia, 3 in Greece, Italy and Japan, 2 in Mexico, New Zealand and Peru, and 1 in Algeria, Armenia, China, Ecuador, France, India, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey. Three main types of kinematics are roughly evenly represented: there are 16 strike-slip, 18 normal, and 16 reverse earthquakes in the database. There are 8 events of magnitude M w < 6, the smallest surface rupturing earthquakes in the database being M w 4. 9 2019 Le Teil, France, and M w 5. 0 2010 Pisayambo, Ecuador and Calingiri, Australia earthquakes. There are 24 medium-large earthquakes of magnitude 6 ≤ M w < 7, and 18 earthquakes of magnitude 7 ≤ M w , the largest events being M w 7.
9 2002 Denali, USA, and 2008 Wenchuan, China earthquakes. The oldest earthquakes are 1872 Owens Valley, USA, and 1887 Sonora, Mexico, earthquakes. 32 of the events in the database occurred in the previous century, and 18 in the past 20 years. Naturally, the variety in earthquake magnitudes is wider when approaching the present day, as of the historical events only the largest size were studied with an adequate precision even decades after the actual event. After a careful review throughout the SURE 2020 dataset, the minimum requirements of the updated dataset structure were not met for all the events in the original dataset at the time of releasing SURE 2. 0. In general, the minimum requirements include the presence of a principal rupture and some slip measurements, the evidence of distributed ruptures, and the availability of georeferenced datasets with sufficient accuracy in literature.
It is important that the two main components of the database, i. e. , rupture traces and slip measurements, are present in the published references, because they allow to derive the two associated members of fault-displacement hazard, i. e. probability of principal or distributed surface rupturing, and exceedance of a specific displacement value. With respect to the first release of the database, we also focused on broadening the magnitude range of reported cases (down to below M w 5), and including more of the reverse faulting earthquakes. We also paid attention to share equitably the number of events per type of the focal mechanism. In particular, the 1891 Nobi, 1896 Rikuu, 1918 Omachi, 1927 North Tango, 1930 North Izu, 1938 Kussharo, 1939 Oga, 1943 Tottori, 1944  La Laja, 1945 Mikawa, 1959 Deshibori, 1974  The 24 new events are dominantly dip slip earthquakes, 8 of which normal, 14 reverse, and two events of Ridgecrest of strike-slip kinematics.
The SURE 2. 0 database is destined for being evolutive and new cases will be added into the database in near future (such events could be for example 1952 M w 7. 5 Kern County, California; 1905 M w 8. 0 Bulnay and 1957 M w 8. 0, Gobi-Altai, both in Mongolia; 2014 M w 6. 9 Yutian, China; 2016 M w 7. 8 Kaikoura, New Zealand). Among new events, all the thrust earthquakes are from the previously published database of reverse faults  4  , some of which with some revision applied. The rest of the new events are normal faulting earthquakes and have been studied and compiled for SURE 2. 0. All the strike-slip earthquakes, and some of the dip-slip earthquakes were already included in SURE 2020, but their data were revised for the SURE 2. 0 structure and quality level, some even noticeably compared to the previous.
The earthquakes included in the database are listed in Table  1 , and their more detailed geological, geodetical, and structural parameters are given in the Database file SURE2. 0_Earthquakes. xlsx  3. To date, the database consists of more than 75 000 individual surface rupture traces and close to 19 000 slip observations. The events with most mapped traces are 2002 M w 7. 9 Denali (20 999 ruptures), 1999 M w 7. 1 Hector Mine (10 887 ruptures), and 2019 M w 7. 1 Ridgecrest 2 (10 875 ruptures) earthquakes. The number of individual rupture traces is also a subject to shapefile drawing accuracy, and large number of rupture traces does not necessarily indicate large cumulative length of surface rupturing. 2002 Denali earthquake is in its own class also in total length of all surface rupturing (656 km), and the second largest earthquakes in that respect resulted roughly half of that rupturing: 1992 M w 7.
3 Landers (377 km) and 2008 M w 7. 9 Wenchuan (345 km). The level of detail is quite different across the SURE 2. 0 events: in fact, for some events only a few or no displacement measurements are available, while for the most recent events surface faulting parameters are measured in great detail. The largest events in the database in terms of measurement points are 2016 M w 6. 5 Norcia (7 903 data points), 2010 M w 7. 2 El Mayor-Cucapah (1 603 data points), and 2016 M w 6. 0 Amatrice (1 561 data points) earthquakes.
Rupture ranking. The most significant improvement to the SURE database in this new release is the surface rupture categorization on the basis of their geological and structural background. When the approach to the probabilistic fault displacement hazard assessment was first introduced, the need for distinguishing the principal fault (hereinafter referred to as PF), i. e. , the fault that is responsible for the release of seismic energy during the earthquake, from the distributed rupturing, which refers to all the secondary faulting around the main plane of the slip was emphasized  1. Further studies 6 acknowledged the impact of diverse types of distributed rupturing to the empirical regression parameters. These authors distinguished off-fault rupturing by excluding the surface faulting at large distances (>2 km) from the analysis.
They stated that such ruptures are of a different nature to the secondary faulting closer to the principal fault. When compiling the SURE 2. 0 database, we took this even further, and decided to distinguish the distributed rupturing according to their geological and structural context based on the experience of historical surface rupturing earthquakes. Considering the pre-earthquake studies for example around Monte Vettore in Central Italy, which hosted the 2016 M w 6. 5 Norcia earthquake, we can see clearly how some secondary faulting appeared along the pre-existing faults that are subsidiary structures about two kilometres off the Monte Vettore fault  7. Some off fault rupturing takes place even in remarkable distances, such as the triggered slip that occurred on pre-existing faults in about 100 km distance during the M w 7.
2 El Mayor Cucapah earthquake in Mexico 8. This type of rupturing differs from the most common type of distributed rupturing that appears near the PF with no pre-earthquake background. All the surface rupturing data have been evaluated using a uniform fault ranking scheme (Fig. 1 ) that includes the categories of distributed ruptures identified in the current database. According to the ranking scheme, surface rupturing off the principal fault is categorized into rupturing along diverse types of pre-existing structures and to more randomly distributed ruptures in the vicinity of the principal fault. The pre-existing structures can be faults connected to the PF at depth, or separate, unconnected faults, along which displacement is triggered during the earthquake as sympathetic rupturing. These ranking categories can be present in any faulting kinematics.
In addition to these ranking categories, large-scale folding related to compressional stress may lead to bending-moment or flexural-slip rupturing in specific conditions around faults of reverse kinematics. Fault ranking is an expert opinion of the Authors, based on those geological criteria. Fault ranking was performed utilizing the earthquake rupture data, but also databases of Quaternary faults, geological maps of the earthquake area, and geological cross-sections. The ranking scheme applied throughout SURE 2. 0 database was first introduced for reverse faults  4  , and similar approach has been applied to normal and strike-slip earthquakes with adequate adaptation. The ranking scheme has been developed first and foremost for fault displacement hazard assessment purposes, so that the hazard at the site of interest can be calculated considering the situation better describing the level of detailed geological knowledge at the site.
SURE database user can sort the data accordingly to on-fault (i. e. , Principal fault rupturing, rank 1) and off-fault (i. e. , secondary, or distributed rupturing, rank other than 1) data, or use the more detailed ranking categories as described below. Ranking categories. We distinguished 6 different faulting types, which are described in detail in the following. Principal fault rupture (PF, rank 1). PF is the surface expression of the movement along the fault plane responsible for the release of the seismic energy during an earthquake. PF has the most continuous surface expression, and it is generally recognized by the highest values of displacement. PF often occurs on fault traces that have the potential to be known and mapped prior to the earthquake, i. e. , faults with long-term geologic and geomorphic evidence of activity.
The overall strike direction and fault orientation is usually relatively constant throughout the PF strike, even though significant differences from main strike can occur at fault complexities (e. g. , bends). SURE database contains only events with principal fault surface expression, thus no blind earthquakes are included. Simple distributed ruptures (rank 2). All the surface rupturing off the principal fault is called distributed rupturing (DR), some of which may take place in kilometres away from the PF trace. In the most common case, it can be categorized as simple distributed rupturing (rank 2), by which we mean discontinuous surface breaks around the PF that occurred as a direct response to the movement along the earthquake fault. Simple distributed rupturing occurs rather randomly around the PF trace, and the measured displacements are remarkably lower than of the PF rupturing nearby.
Primary distributed rupturing can be identified in earthquakes of all kinematics. Triggered distributed ruptures (rank 3). Rupturing along a pre-existing structure that is not likely to be connected to the PF at depth are categorized as triggered distributed rupturing (rank 3). In general, triggered distributed ruptures are the most distant ones from the PF. Typically, triggering causes often a non-linear surface expression of low continuity, i. e. , plenty of discontinuous DR traces around a pre-existing fault structure, at distances where no aleatory (rank 2) rupturing is present in same density. Triggered DRs are hosted by active faults, but the level of their own activity may vary. In the database we also have cases where rank 3 rupturing was triggered along faults that acted as principal fault during different events included in the database.
In case of large-scale folding, distributed surface rupturing does not occur on pre-existing fault planes that could be traced before an earthquake, but surface ruptures are still less randomly located as the simple DR (rank 2) and occur only when fold structures are present. Processing the surface rupturing data. Surface rupturing data from various sources reported according to various standards was collected to the joint database by finding the best corresponding attribute to the data parameters. The nomenclature and slip parameters used in SURE 2. 0 database are shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a ,the slip parameters are shown for normal fault, but the same parameters are applied to ruptures of all kinematics, as applicable. It should be noticed, however, that the parameters are reported as absolute values in the database, and the direction is indicated by additional parameters.
There are cases in which the surface rupturing maps are rather indicative, and other cases in which the level of detail is extreme which has allowed drawing the fault traces in detached segments within a minimal distance from another, just as it appears at the ground surface. Generally, but not always, these latter are the most modern earthquakes. 2) Landscape features and characteristics. The presence of urbanized area or a waterbody can obscure the continuity of the fault structures. The surface rupture traces are brought to SURE database as they were reported by the original sources, but some revisions may have been done also to the shape continuities. An example of surface ruptures of an earthquake of each kinematics is given in Fig. 3. Fault ranking is with similar colours as in Fig. 1.
The objective of applying the detailed ranking scheme to the SURE database is to add supplemental geological information through expert judgement into the compilation. Besides the PF, there is some rank 2 simple distributed rupturing present in every earthquake. Ranking a rupture into any complex type of distributed rupturing categories (rank 1. 5, 21, 22, 3) is done based on some additional insights from geological and seismological data. Ranking of each case was reviewed by the Authors, and it is based on the most detailed information available at the time of ranking. In practice, first thing to distinguish from the mapped surface rupturing data was the PF trace, or traces. The objective was to find the most continuous surface expression occupying the major co-seismic displacement. PF surface rupture traces may contain several types of structural complexities and discontinuities, but the general fault orientation, continuity of rupture and amount of displacement were used to guide the decision to define the traces to rank 1.
HW vs. FW with respect to the nearest rank 1 or rank 1. 5 fault (HW_FW_near). The latter rule is applied within 1 km distance from rank 1. 5 faults; all the DRs further away are associated only with the PF. For example, in dataset of 2016 M w 6. 5 Norcia earthquake there are some simple DRs situated on the footwall (HW_FW_near: FW) of a rank 1. 5 primary distributed rupture, which itself, its simple DRs included, is on hanging wall of the PF (HW_FW_PF: HW). As all the other types of DRs (ranking other than 2) are associated only with the PF, they only have the parameter HW_FW_PF. Considering that slip can be measured only where some rupturing has been observed, some shapefiles have been modified from initial references for matching the measurement points to ruptures, often by slightly dispositioning the rupture shape (or its vertices), or if no traces are given in the vicinity, by drawing a short fault trace at the point.
Data Records SURE 2. 0 database 3 available in Zenodo repository consists of three parts containing i) the basic parameters of each earthquake in the database (SURE2. 0_Earthquakes. xlsx), ii) the displacement data of each event (IdE_ EventName_SURE2. 0_Slip_Obs. xlsx), and iii) the line shapefile providing the geometry of surface ruptures of each earthquake (IdE_EventName_SURE2. 0_ruptures. shp). Surface displacement data are reported in the database by the slip components in each direction, which are synthetised in Fig. 2. Details of the data structure including the data attributes have been updated with respect to the SURE 2020. Basic parameters of the earthquakes. General information of the earthquake: hypocentre related parameters (coordinates, depth, focal mechanism), size (magnitude), time of occurrence, and structural background of each event (Table  2 ) is gathered into SURE2.
Ruptures shapefile. The rupture shapefiles contain all the mapped traces of all the events in the database. The rupture traces attribute data contain, as a minimum, earthquake identification number (IdE), iterative number of the rupture (IdS), a joint parameter combining these two as an identification of a singular rupture trace (IdE_IdS), rupture length, working group ranking (Comp_rank), citation of used reference, and a note if the rupture geometry has been revised with respect to the original source (Geom_rev). When the rupture is a DR of  a dip-slip (normal or reverse) earthquake, a parameter indicating its location either on hanging wall or footwall side of the corresponding primary fault is a compulsory feature in the database. The shapefile attributes and data format used are listed in Table  3.
Slip observation data. Slip observation data of all the earthquakes in the database is listed in a uniform way in IdE_Name_SURE 2. 0_Slip_Obs spreadsheets, given separately for each earthquake in the database. The attributes given to the observation points are grouped in 11 subgroups describing the basic information of the observation point, various slip components, fault and site related information, and fault ranking. Each subgroup is better detailed the second row of the tabular file. In addition to this, on the third row of the file we provide the field aliases in a way that is better compatible with the most used programs for geospatial data analysis. The structure and contents of the slip parameter attributes are detailed in Supplementary Table  1. There are some minor updates to the tabular file structure with respect to the SURE 2020 release.
The SURE 2. 0 structure enables reporting of all surface rupturing, associated fault and the site related data, and all the slip components with corresponding errors, and minimum and maximum measurements reported at the location. Naturally, the data available varies from point to point, but the minimum information, provided for each point are the identification parameters of i) the earthquake (IdE); ii) the rupture segment the slip measurement is related to (IdS; from the surface ruptures shapefile attributes), and iii) the measurement point itself (IdO). Other mandatory information concerns used references, observation point coordinates (reported in WGS84), compiler ranking, and the information about the possible revision of the geometry. Only the observation points with some reported slip component are included, but no mandatory fields are defined as the slip can   be of any direction.
Technical Validation The validation of the database, for each component (traces, slip observation points, earthquake data), was completed through various checking. The earthquake population was initially shared into fault mechanism groups (normal, reverse, strike-slip) and treated and implemented by sub-groups of co-authors, after which the cross-checking sessions were convened. With this, we ensured the accuracy of rupture traces (in respect to the original references) and the matching between one measurement point and a rupture trace. For instance, we corrected erroneous slip values (e. g. correcting "0" values to "no value"), manually re-digitized traces where surprisingly uneven or extremely "segmented" (at a meter scale), and above all verified the consistency of ranking strategy based on geological information all through the database.
In a text document available in the Zenodo repository (Notes. txt) we have gathered the notes regarding the data gathering and revision process applied to surface faulting data of each of the earthquake in SURE 2. 0 database. In that document we have also listed the updates and modifications compared to the previous version of the database. Basic statistics of the database. The SURE 2. 0 database consists of 18 885 data points and 75 695 rupture traces totalling 4 481 km of their cumulative length. Data points per event vary massively between the events, the average being 118 points per event. The 2016 M w 6. 5 Norcia has the greatest number of data points (7 903), followed by 2010 M w 7. 2 El Mayor-Cucapah with 1 603 points, the 2016 M w 6. 0 Amatrice with 1 561 data points, and 1992 M w 7.
3 Landers earthquake with 1 123 data points. All the rest of the events have less than 550 points per event, and the least number of data points are reported from 1988 M w 6. 6 Tennant Creek (6 data points), 1950 M w 5. 6 Fort Sage Mountain (3 data points), and 1946 M w 7. 3 Ancash earthquakes (0 data points). Differences in number of slip observation points seem to depend not only on the size of the earthquake, but also the number of the scientists involved in the field: in Central Italy earthquakes of 2016 there were numerous research groups collecting the slip observation data which were gathered into joint Open EMERGEO database  7, 13. We can speculate also that it is easier to measure the slip for dip-slip offsets than strike-slip ones, which may partially explain the opposite balance between the slip observation and number of traces for Ridgecrest when compared to Norcia earthquake, even if they both are recent events studied in great detail in the field.
Similarly as with the number of slip measurements, there is a rising trend in number of slip measurements with the increasing magnitude of the earthquake (Fig. 4 ). The largest number of individual rupture traces in the database are from 2002 M w 7. 9 Denali (20 999 rupture traces), 1999 M w 7. 1 Hector Mine (10 887 ruptures), and 2019 M w 7. 1 and M w 6. 4 Ridgecrest earthquakes (10 875 and 7 074 ruptures, respectively), all the rest of the Fig. 4  Number of slip measurement points and rupture traces plotted against the magnitude of the earthquake. Both y-axes are cut, leaving some remarkably high values out from this plot: for points M w 6. 5 Norcia with 7 903 points, M w 7. 2 El Mayor-Cucapah with 1 603 points, M w 6. 0 Amatrice with 1 561 points, and M w 7. 2 Landers with 1 123 points; for rupture traces M w 7.