Are scale‐invariant stress orientations related to seismicity rates near the San Andreas fault?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an analysis of the direction of maximum horizontal compressive stress as a function of depth as observed at different scientific wells along the San Andreas fault, it has recently been suggested that the scale‐invariant fluctuations in the stress orientation over intervals from tens of centimeters to several kilometers are directly related to the local earthquake magnitude‐frequency statistics. Here we mathematically analyze the possibility of such a relationship and show that the magnitude‐frequency statistics alone is insufficient to explain the scaling of the stress orientation fluctuations. While stress perturbations caused by slip on adjacent faults of various sizes can still be responsible for these fluctuations, the average amplitude of the induced changes in the orientation would have to increase nonlinearly with the fault size. As the example of two research wells near the San Andreas fault also shows, the specific nonlinear form would have to depend sensitively on the specific geographic location. We conclude that the observed scale‐invariant fluctuations in the stress orientation are more likely a consequence of a combination of local seismicity rates and the specific local fault structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".