Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)--The Time-Independent Model
2014458 citationsEdward H. Field, R. Arrowsmith et al.profile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of M. T. Page's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by M. T. Page with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites M. T. Page more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by M. T. Page. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by M. T. Page. The network helps show where M. T. Page may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of M. T. Page
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of M. T. Page.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of M. T. Page based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with M. T. Page. M. T. Page is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Hough, S. E., Eric M. Thompson, A. Baltay, et al.. (2019). Near-Field Ground Motions from the 2019 M6.4 and M7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquakes: Subdued Shaking due to Pervasive Non-Linear Site Response?. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2019.
Field, Edward H., Jeanne L. Hardebeck, A. L. Llenos, et al.. (2016). Aftershock Forecasting: Recent Developments and Lessons from the 2016 M5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma, Earthquake. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2016.3 indexed citations
13.
Elst, N. van der, et al.. (2015). Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2015.3 indexed citations
Field, Edward H., R. Arrowsmith, G. P. Biasi, et al.. (2013). Overview of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3 (UCERF3) Time-Independent Model. AGUFM. 2013.1 indexed citations
16.
Page, M. T., S. E. Hough, & K. R. Felzer. (2012). Can current New Madrid seismicity be explained as a decaying aftershock sequence. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2012.1 indexed citations
17.
Schorlemmer, Danijel, et al.. (2012). The Source Inversion Validation (SIV) Initiative: A Collaborative Study on Uncertainty Quantification in Earthquake Source Inversions. EGUGA. 8578.1 indexed citations
18.
Ampuero, Jean‐Paul, et al.. (2011). Seismological evidence and dynamic model of reverse rupture propagation during the 2010 M7.2 El Mayor Cucapah earthquake. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2011.3 indexed citations
19.
Page, M. T., et al.. (2010). Source Inversion Validation: Quantifying Uncertainties in Earthquake Source Inversions. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2010.1 indexed citations
20.
Page, M. T., K. R. Felzer, Ray J. Weldon, & G. P. Biasi. (2008). The Magnitude-Frequency Distribution on the Southern San Andreas Fault Follows the Gutenberg-Richter Distribution. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2008.4 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.