{"id":294,"date":"2022-01-05T14:28:26","date_gmt":"2022-01-05T14:28:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/edith.uninsubria.it\/?p=294"},"modified":"2022-01-28T16:07:11","modified_gmt":"2022-01-28T16:07:11","slug":"edith-kickoff-meeting-sum-up-and-what-is-next","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edith.uninsubria.it\/index.php\/2022\/01\/05\/edith-kickoff-meeting-sum-up-and-what-is-next\/","title":{"rendered":"EDITH Kickoff meeting sum up…. and what is next."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In spring 2021 (14-16th<\/sup> April, 2021) the kick-off meeting of the EDITH project was held online, gathering over 80 participants from all over the globe<\/a>, ranging from PhD Students, Early Career Researchers and Senior Scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a full description of the kickoff meeting plan <\/a>and program<\/a>, see the linked pages. A sum up of the meeting can also be read on Quaternary Perspectives<\/a>, that covered our initiative in its Issue n. 30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keynote talks were given by eight invited speakers from across a range of career stages, institutions and backgrounds. Their talks introduced classical and innovative approaches to earthquake geology across four main themes, geodesy<\/strong>, paleoseismology<\/strong>, archaeoseismology<\/strong> and tectonic geomorphology<\/strong>.  You can find the abstracts and recorded presentations on Youtube<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the second\npart, we invited the participants to a collective brainstorming divided into\nthematic breakout rooms which focused on the following topics: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Epistemic\nuncertainty; <\/li>
  2. deciphering\nthe seismic cycle; <\/li>
  3. short\nvs long term time scales; <\/li>
  4. geologic\ndata for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment<\/li>
  5. groundbreaking\ncooperations.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The discussions (each 60 minutes) were stimulating, and we came out of these sessions with a spectrum of ideas, including suggestions for Hot Topics<\/em>, that were identified to be challenges that can be tackled by the EDITH community due to their interdisciplinary approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Therefore, we plan to keep the interest focused on Hot Topics<\/em> identified by our community through:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    -Workshops\nfor ECS to share methodological background on upcoming and challenging methods\nrelated to the Hot Topics<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    -Thematic\nworking groups aimed at discussing most recent advances in earthquake geology and\nproposing future collaborations<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    – Paper\nparties, discussing groundbreaking articles in earthquake geology or\npotentially linked research areas offering \npromising new interdisciplinary approaches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Key points\nfrom the breakout groups we use to define further action are:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Uncertainties<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How to deal with increasing uncertainties that arise from the availability of high resolution topographic data and how to define the best signal to noise ratio, were the key topics discussed. Maybe Machine Learning (ML) methods can help us to find solutions. Therefore, we plan a training course on ML techniques to share available knowledge to tackle these challenges. Another issue that was touched was the methodology of trenching. Lots of uncertainties arise from this methodology since it is only point data which is often not reproducible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Deciphering the seismic cycle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We\nidentified a major knowledge gap in unraveling the seismic cycle, especially on\nslow moving intraplate faults. Can state of the art techniques like InSAR or\nLIDAR help us in identifying faults which are in the final stages of the\nseismic cycle? This is a topic that was identified as \u201cHot Topic\u201d and we will\ndedicate a workshop on it to further advance collaboration and ideas. Furthermore,\nwe discussed possibilities on how to identify creep in paleoseismological\ntrenches. This would be a key for more complete hazard assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Short vs. long term time scales<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How to\napproach the discrepancies between geodetic and geological strain rates, was a\nmajor point of discussion. Furthermore, how distributed faulting in complex\nfault systems influences strain rate measurements is an important related topic\nto be discussed. Healing processes need to be taken into account as major\nfactor in affecting fault behavior on different time scales. Therefore,\ncollaboration with scientists form the rock mechanics community is desirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Geologic data for probabilistic\nseismic hazard assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Discussing strain maps from InSAR time series analysis we think they could be a major contribution, if we consider transients in strain. In fact, we noticed, that we are lacking experts from the field of PSHA and definitively need to initiate joint discussions with them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Groundbreaking cooperations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Continuation\nof surface faults to depth is a widely needed input into our models, as well as\nthe distribution of microseismicity. Therefore, probably not new or\ngroundbreaking, but for sure extremely desirable is the collaboration with geophysicists.\nWe need to promote our initiatives to our colleagues from this field.\nApplication of machine learning techniques and Deep GIS is the hot topic, but\nwe need to make sure that methodological developments are sound and integrating\nground truthing. How this can be done will be a topic in the planned training\ncourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We think\nthat the following actions are good choices to further perpetuate our\ninitiative and stay in touch to discuss and learn about our exciting science:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n