Fluid‐assisted deformation of the subduction interface: Coupled and decoupled regimes from 2‐D hydromechanical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Shear deformation, accompanied with fluid activity inside the subduction interface, is related to many tectonic energy‐releasing events, including regular and slow earthquakes. We have numerically examined the fluid‐rock interactions inside a deforming subduction interface using state‐of‐the‐art 2‐D hydromechanical numerical models, which incorporate the rock fracturing behavior as a plastic rheology which is dependent on the pore fluid pressure. Our modeling results suggest that two typical dynamical regimes of the deforming subduction interface exist, namely, a “coupled” and a “decoupled” regime. In the coupled regime the subduction interface is subdivided into multiple rigid blocks, each separated by a narrow shear zone inclined at an angle of 15–20° with respect to the slab surface. In contrast, in the decoupled regime the subduction interface is divided into two distinct layers moving relative to each other along a pervasive slab surface‐parallel shear zone. Through a systematic parameter study, we observe that the tensile strength (cohesion) of the material within the subduction interface dictates the resulting style of deformation within the interface: high cohesion (~60 MPa) results in the coupled regime, while low cohesion (~10 MPa) leads to the decoupled regime. We also demonstrate that the lithostatic pressure and inflow/outflow fluid fluxes (i.e., fluid‐fluxed boundary condition) influence the location and orientation of faults. Predictions from our numerical models are supported by experimental laboratory studies, geological data, and geophysical observations from modern subduction settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".