MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139098281 · doi:10.1785/0120070097

Effects of Frictional Behavior and Geometry of Subduction Fault on Coseismic Seafloor Deformation

2008· article· en· W2139098281 on OpenAlexaff
K. Wang, J. He

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeafloor spreadingSubductionSeismologyDeformation (meteorology)GeometryFault (geology)GeodesyGeophysicsTectonicsOceanographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The seismogenic zone of subduction faults appears to have an updip limit, seaward of which the fault exhibits velocity-strengthening behavior. We use a two-dimensional finite element model including a frictional subduction fault to explore how coseismic strengthening of the updip segment affects seafloor deformation. For a stress drop of a few MPa along the seismogenic zone, strengthening of the updip segment by a comparable amount can prevent the rupture from breaking the trench. The resultant seafloor uplift is much larger than that predicted by a model of equal seismic moment or maximum fault slip in which the seismogenic zone extends to the trench. With a curved-fault geometry, although a lower degree of coseismic strengthening of the updip segment leads to greater slip in the shallowest part of the fault, it produces smaller seafloor uplift, contrary to a popular belief. Given the paucity of direct observations of the coseismic behavior of the updip segment, the models yield important information for understanding rupture mechanics of subduction faults and tsunami generation. We also illustrate how the results may be used to guide fault slip parameterization in analytical dislocation models.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207