Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (117)
Year of publication
- 2017 (117) (remove)
Document Type
- Other (117) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (117) (remove)
Keywords
- Internet (2)
- MOOC (2)
- affect (2)
- carbon dioxide (2)
- embodied cognition (2)
- 2.5D Treemaps (1)
- Absorption kinetics (1)
- Aluminium (1)
- Aluminium adjuvants (1)
- Aufklarung (1)
Institute
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (22)
- Institut für Physik und Astronomie (17)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (11)
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (10)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH (10)
- Department Psychologie (8)
- Institut für Ernährungswissenschaft (6)
- Department Linguistik (5)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (5)
- Institut für Chemie (4)
- Institut für Mathematik (4)
- Sozialwissenschaften (4)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (1)
- Department Musik und Kunst (1)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (1)
- Forschungsbereich „Politik, Verwaltung und Management“ (1)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH (1)
- Historisches Institut (1)
- Institut für Germanistik (1)
- Institut für Jüdische Theologie (1)
- Institut für Romanistik (1)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (1)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (1)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1)
Kijko et al. (2016) present various methods to estimate parameters that are relevant for probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment. One of these parameters, although not the most influential, is the maximum possible earthquake magnitude m(max). I show that the proposed estimation of m(max) is based on an erroneous equation related to a misuse of the estimator in Cooke (1979) and leads to unstable results. So far, reported finite estimations of m(max) arise from data selection, because the estimator in Kijko et al. (2016) diverges with finite probability. This finding is independent of the assumed distribution of earthquake magnitudes. For the specific choice of the doubly truncated Gutenberg-Richter distribution, I illustrate the problems by deriving explicit equations. Finally, I conclude that point estimators are generally not a suitable approach to constrain m(max).