MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777568429 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2013-0160

The geometry of the North Anatolian transform fault in the Sea of Marmara and its temporal evolution: implications for the development of intracontinental transform faults

2014· article· en· W1777568429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. M. Celâl Şengör, C. Grall, Caner İmren, Xavier Le Pichon, Nací Görür, Pierre Henry, Hayrullah Karabulut, Muzaffer Siyako

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorth Anatolian FaultGeologyTransform faultSeismologyFault (geology)Strike-slip tectonicsStructural basinEchelon formationShear (geology)Context (archaeology)BathymetryPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North Anatolian Fault is a 1200 km long strike-slip fault system connecting the East Anatolian convergent area with the Hellenic subduction zone and, as such, represents an intracontinental transform fault. It began forming some 13–11 Ma ago within a keirogen, called the North Anatolian Shear Zone, which becomes wider from east to west. Its width is maximum at the latitude of the Sea of Marmara, where it is 100 km. The Marmara Basin is unique in containing part of an active strike-slip fault system in a submarine environment in which there has been active sedimentation in a Paratethyan context where stratigraphic resolution is higher than elsewhere in the Mediterranean. It is also surrounded by a long-civilised rim where historical records reach well into the second half of the first millennium BCE (before common era). In this study, we have used 210 multichannel seismic reflexion profiles, adding up to 6210 km profile length and high-resolution bathymetry and chirp profiles reported in the literature to map all the faults that are younger than the Oligocene. Within these faults, we have distinguished those that cut the surface and those that do not. Among the ones that do not cut the surface, we have further created a timetable of fault generation based on seismic sequence recognition. The results are surprising in that faults of all orientations contain subsets that are active and others that are inactive. This suggests that as the shear zone evolves, faults of all orientations become activated and deactivated in a manner that now seems almost haphazard, but a tendency is noticed to confine the overall movement to a zone that becomes narrower with time since the inception of the shear zone, i.e., the whole keirogen, at its full width. In basins, basin margins move outward with time, whereas highs maintain their faults free of sediment cover, making their dating difficult, but small perched basins on top of them in places make relative dating possible. In addition, these basins permit comparison of geological history of the highs with those of the neighbouring basins. The two westerly deeps within the Sea of Marmara seem inherited structures from the earlier Rhodope–Pontide fragment/Sakarya continent collision, but were much accentuated by the rise of the intervening highs during the shear evolution. When it is assumed that below 10 km depth the faults that now constitute the Marmara fault family might have widths approaching 4 km, the resulting picture resembles a large version of an amphibolite-grade shear zone fabric, an inference in agreement with the scale-independent structure of shear zones. We think that the North Anatolian Fault at depth has such a fabric not only on a meso, but also on a macro scale. Detection of such broad, vertical shear zones in Precambrian terrains may be one way to get a handle on relative plate motion directions during those remote times.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations125
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207