Viscoelastic relaxation following subduction earthquakes and its effects on afterslip determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Afterslip is commonly thought to be the controlling process in postseismic deformation immediately following a great megathrust earthquake and is usually inferred from geodetic observations using purely elastic models. However, observed motion reversal of the near‐trench area right after the 2011 M w 9 Tohoku‐oki earthquake demonstrates the dominance of viscoelastic relaxation of coseismically induced stresses. To understand the importance of incorporating viscoelasticity in afterslip determination, we employ biviscous Burgers mantle rheology and use finite element models to explore how viscoelastic relaxation in short‐term postseismic deformation is controlled by various geometrical and rheological factors. Our results indicate that immediately after large megathrust earthquakes ( M w > 8.0), viscoelastic deformation should always cause opposing motion of inland and trench areas and subsidence around landward termination of the rupture, although the rate of such postseismic motion depends on local conditions such as the age and hence thickness of the slab and transient mantle viscosity values. While elastic models may be adequate for afterslip estimation for earthquakes of M w < 7.5, neglect of viscoelasticity for larger events leads to overestimate of afterslip downdip of the rupture and underestimate of afterslip at shallower depths. Reassessing shallow afterslip following the 2005 M w 8.7 Nias earthquake using 2‐D viscoelastic models suggests that the actual afterslip may be greater than that estimated using an elastic model by more than 50%. Similarly, interpreting trenchward motion of some seafloor GPS sites following the Tohoku‐oki earthquake using a viscoelastic model suggests large shallow afterslip outside of the main rupture area.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".