Lack of continuity of the San Andreas Fault in southern California: Three‐dimensional fault models and earthquake scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1200‐km‐long San Andreas Fault loses its apparent continuity in southern California near San Gorgonio Pass [ Allen, 1957 ], which raises significant questions given the dominant role of this fault in active California tectonics. What is the fundamental three‐dimensional (3‐D) geometry and kinematic behavior of the San Andreas fault system in this complex region? Is a throughgoing, if complex, San Andreas rupture from the Mojave Desert to the Coachella Valley possible? We have explored the issue of 3‐D continuity by mapping over 60 faults in this region to depths of 15–20 km from hypocenter locations and focal mechanisms. We were able to constrain the 3‐D geometry of the San Andreas fault zone (SAF) near San Gorgonio Pass from the 3‐D geometry of the fault network surrounding it. The most likely configuration is for the San Andreas Fault to merge into the shallow‐dipping San Gorgonio Pass thrust northwest of Indio. We concluded that there is no direct continuity at present but rather a network of faults, and the only kind of rupture possible for the SAF in this region is a complex rupture, involving both strike‐slip and reverse faulting. GPS measurements also suggest that despite the fact that large motions must have occurred in the past based on offset geologic markers, only minor motion is occurring today in this area. Applying our findings about the fault geometry, we explored several simple earthquake scenarios to determine the most favorable conditions for a throughgoing rupture of the San Andreas fault system from the Mojave Desert to the Coachella Valley.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".