Are rupture zone limits of great subduction earthquakes controlled by upper plate structures? Evidence from multichannel seismic reflection data acquired across the northern Ecuador–southwest Colombia margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subduction of the Nazca plate beneath the Ecuador‐Colombia margin has produced four megathrust earthquakes during the last century. The 500‐km‐long rupture zone of the 1906 (Mw = 8.8) event was partially reactivated by three thrust events, in 1942 (Mw = 7.8), 1958 (Mw = 7.7), and 1979 (Mw = 8.2), whose rupture zones abut one another. Multichannel seismic reflection and bathymetric data acquired during the SISTEUR cruise show evidence that the margin wedge is segmented by transverse crustal faults that potentially correlate with the limits of the earthquake coseismic slip zones. The Paleogene‐Neogene Jama Quininde and Esmeraldas crustal faults define a ∼200‐km‐long margin crustal block that coincides with the 1942 earthquake rupture zone. Subduction of the buoyant Carnegie Ridge is inferred to partially lock the plate interface along central Ecuador. However, coseismic slip during the 1942 and 1906 earthquakes may have terminated against the subducted northern flank of the ridge. We report on a newly identified Manglares crustal fault that cuts transversally through the margin wedge and correlates with the limit between the 1958 and 1979 rupture zones. During the earthquake cycle the fault is associated with high‐stress concentration on the plate interface. An outer basement high, which bounds the margin seaward of the 1958 rupture zone, may act as a deformable buttress to seaward propagation of coseismic slip along a megathrust splay fault. Coseismic uplift of the basement high is interpreted as the cause for the 1958 tsunami. We propose a model of weak transverse faults which reduce coupling between adjacent margin segments, together with a splay fault and an asperity along the plate interface as controlling the seismogenic rupture of the 1958 earthquake.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".