Crustal Deformation Following Great Subduction Earthquakes Controlled by Earthquake Size and Mantle Rheology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After a great subduction earthquake, viscoelastic stress relaxation causes opposing motion of Earth's surface in the strike‐normal direction, with the dividing boundary located roughly above the downdip termination of the rupture. As the effect of the viscoelastic relaxation decays with time, the effect of the relocking of the megathrust becomes increasingly dominant to cause the dividing boundary to migrate away from the rupture zone, eventually leading to wholesale landward motion. The evolution of the postseismic deformation is controlled not only by mantle viscosity but also by the size of the earthquake. Large coseismic fault slip induces greater stress perturbation that takes a longer time to relax, and a greater rupture length along‐strike results in a pattern of postseismic viscous mantle flow less efficient for stress relaxation. Here we employ spherical‐Earth finite element models of Burgers rheology to quantify postseismic deformation processes for ten 8.0 ≤ Mw ≤ 9.5 subduction earthquakes. Using geodetic data as constraints, we reconstruct spatiotemporally continuous evolution of the postseismic deformation following each earthquake. We comparatively examine the “reference time” when the dividing boundary of the opposing motion passes through the map view location of the 50‐km depth contour of the subduction interface. Our results suggest a positive dependence of the reference time on earthquake size, although site‐ and/or event‐specific factors such as subduction rate, afterslip, and postseismic locking state of the megathrust also affect the evolution. Upper mantle viscosities constrained by available geodetic observations show somewhat different values between subduction zones located far from one another.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".