MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314530086 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggw077

Residual polar motion caused by coseismic and interseismic deformations from 1900 to present

2016· article· en· W2314530086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriele Cambiotti, Xin Wang, R. Sabadini, David A. Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPolar motionInduced seismicityGeologySeismologyGeodesyEarth's rotationResidualPolarSeismic momentPlate tectonicsMagnitude (astronomy)GeophysicsTectonicsFault (geology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We challenge the perspective that seismicity could contribute to polar motion by arguing quantitatively that, in first approximation and on the average, interseismic deformations can compensate for it. This point is important because what we must simulate and observe in Earth Orientation Parameter time-series over intermediate timescales of decades or centuries is the residual polar motion resulting from the two opposing processes of coseismic and interseismic deformations. In this framework, we first simulate the polar motion caused by only coseismic deformations during the longest period available of instrumental seismicity, from 1900 to present, using both the CMT and ISC-GEM catalogues. The instrumental seismicity covering a little longer than one century does not represent yet the average seismicity that we should expect on the long term. Indeed, although the simulation shows a tendency to move the Earth rotation pole towards 133 E at the average rate of 16.5 mm yr -1 , this trend is still sensitive to individual megathrust earthquakes, particularly to the 1960 Chile and 1964 Alaska earthquakes. In order to further investigate this issue, we develop a global seismicity model (GSM) that is independent from any earthquake catalogue and that describes the average seismicity along plate boundaries on the long term by combining information about presentday plate kinematics with the Anderson theory of faulting, the seismic moment conservation principle and a few other assumptions. Within this framework, we obtain a secular polar motion of 8 mm yr -1 towards 112.5 E that is comparable with that estimated from 1900 to present using the earthquake catalogues, although smaller by a factor of 2 in amplitude and different by 20 in direction. Afterwards, in order to reconcile the idea of a secular polar motion caused by earthquakes with our simplest understanding of the seismic cycle, we adapt the GSM in order to account for interseismic deformations and we use it to quantify, for the first time ever, their contribution to polar motion. Taken together, coseismic and interseismic deformations make the rotation pole wander around the north pole with maximum polar excursions of about 1 m. In particular, the rotation pole moves towards about Newfoundland when the interseismic contribution dominates over the coseismic ones (i.e. during phases of low seismicity or, equivalently, when most of the fault system associated with plate boundaries is locked). When megathrust earthquakes occur, instead, the rotation pole is suddenly shifted in an almost opposite direction, towards about 133 E.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207