Significant lateral dip changes may have limited the scale of the 2015 <i>M</i><sub><i>w</i></sub> 7.8 Gorkha earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake has drawn interest due to its complex fault geometry. Both geodetic and geologic studies have focused on the dip variations. In this study we invert the coseismic geodetic data for the 2‐D dip variations of the earthquake. The best fit model confirms that the dip varies with depth, and suggests that there is a significant lateral dip anomaly along strike. The depth‐dependent dip variation suggests that the earthquake ruptured a ramp‐flat fault. The shallow ramp may have prevented the rupture breaking through the surface. In addition, a lateral large‐dip anomaly is found in the northeastern corner of the slip area, which supports the previous findings of inferred interseismic fault coupling, coseismic high‐frequency radiations, and the aftershock mechanisms. This lateral dip anomaly is likely associated with local tearing within the Indian slab. It may have blocked the east‐southeastward rupture propagations of the Gorkha earthquake, implying important controls on the earthquake scale and the spatial limits of ruptures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".