Thermal control of the seismogenic zone of southern central Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] We developed thermal models for the Chile subduction zone along two profiles at 38.2°S and 42°S within the rupture area of the 1960 M = 9.5 Valdivia earthquake and south of the 2010 M = 8.8 Maule earthquake. The age difference of the subducting Nazca Plate has a major impact on the thermal regime, being much younger and hotter in the south. Seafloor heat flow observations confirm this difference but also indicate that in the southern area, heat advection at the outer rise cools the incoming plate. Heat flow values derived from the depth of gas hydrate bottom-simulating reflectors are in general agreement with probe and borehole measurements. The positions where the plate interface reaches temperatures of 100–150°C and 350–450°C differ between the two profiles. If these temperatures control the updip and downdip limits of the interplate seismogenic zone, the seismogenic zone widens and shifts landward to greater depths from south to north. Observed microseismicity, however, seems to fade at temperatures much lower than 350–450°C. This discrepancy can be explained in three alternative ways: (1) deformation in a thick subduction channel controls the seismic/aseismic transition; (2) microseismicity recorded over a limited time period does not represent the rupture depth of large interface earthquakes; or (3) the serpentinized mantle wedge controls the downdip limit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".