The postseismic response to the 2002<i>M</i>7.9 Denali Fault earthquake: constraints from InSAR 2003-2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
InSAR is particularly sensitive to vertical displacements, which can be important in distinguishing between mechanisms responsible for the postseismic response to large earthquakes (afterslip, viscoelastic relaxation). We produce maps of the surface displacements resulting from the postseismic response to the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake, using data from the Canadian Radarsat-1 satellite from the periods summer 2003, summer 2004 and summer 2005. A peak-to-trough signal of amplitude 4 cm in the satellite line of sight was observed between summer 2003 and summer 2004. By the period between summer 2004 and summer 2005, the displacement rate had dropped below the threshold required for observation with InSAR over a single year. The InSAR observations show that the principal postseismic relaxation process acted at a depth of ∼50 km, equivalent to the top of the mantle. However, the observations are still incapable of distinguishing between distributed (viscoelastic relaxation) and localized (afterslip) deformation. The imposed coseismic stresses are highest in the lower crust and, assuming a Maxwell rheology, a viscosity ratio of at least 5 between lower crust and upper mantle is required to explain the contrast in behaviour. The lowest misfits are produced by mixed models of viscoelastic relaxation in the mantle and shallow afterslip in the upper crust. Profiles perpendicular to the fault show significant asymmetry, which is consistent with differences in rheological structure across the fault.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".