MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531280820 · doi:10.1002/2015jb011963

Frictional properties of the active San Andreas Fault at SAFOD: Implications for fault strength and slip behavior

2015· article· en· W1531280820 on OpenAlexaff
B. M. Carpenter, D. M. Saffer, Chris Marone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologyBoreholeSlip (aerodynamics)SeismologyFault (geology)CreepSan andreas faultGeotechnical engineeringPetrologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present results from a comprehensive laboratory study of the frictional strength and constitutive properties for all three active strands of the San Andreas Fault penetrated in the San Andreas Observatory at Depth (SAFOD). The SAFOD borehole penetrated the Southwest Deforming Zone (SDZ), the Central Deforming Zone (CDZ), both of which are actively creeping, and the Northeast Boundary Fault (NBF). Our results include measurements of the frictional properties of cuttings and core samples recovered at depths of ~2.7 km. We find that materials from the two actively creeping faults exhibit low frictional strengths (μ = ~0.1), velocity‐strengthening friction behavior, and near‐zero or negative rates of frictional healing. Our experimental data set shows that the center of the CDZ is the weakest section of the San Andreas Fault, with μ = ~0.10. Fault weakness is highly localized and likely caused by abundant magnesium‐rich clays. In contrast, serpentine from within the SDZ, and wall rock of both the SDZ and CDZ, exhibits velocity‐weakening friction behavior and positive healing rates, consistent with nearby repeating microearthquakes. Finally, we document higher friction coefficients (μ > 0.4) and complex rate‐dependent behavior for samples recovered across the NBF. In total, our data provide an integrated view of fault behavior for the three active fault strands encountered at SAFOD and offer a consistent explanation for observations of creep and microearthquakes along weak fault zones within a strong crust.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207