Azimuthal Anisotropy of the North American Upper Mantle Based on Full Waveform Inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new azimuthal anisotropy model for the North American and Caribbean Plates, namely, , is constructed based on full waveform inversion and records from the USArray and other temporary/permanent networks deployed in the study region. A total of 180 earthquakes and 4,516 seismographic stations are employed in the inversion to simultaneously constrain radially and azimuthally anisotropic model parameters: , , , and , within the crust and mantle. Thirty‐two preconditioned conjugate gradient iterations have been utilized to minimize frequency‐dependent phase discrepancies between observed and predicted seismograms for three‐component short‐period (15–40 s) body waves and long‐period (25–100 s) surface waves. Model exhibits complicated variations in anisotropic fabrics underneath the western and eastern United States, especially at depths shallower than 100 km. For instance, the fast axis orientations in model suggest the presence of trench‐perpendicular mantle flows underneath the Cascadia Subduction Zone and also follow the strikes of the Snake River Plain, the Ouachita Orogenic Front, and the Grenville and Appalachian Orogenic Belts. The amplitudes of azimuthal anisotropy reduce to around 1% at depths greater than 200 km, and the orientations are subparallel to the global plate motion directions to the east of the Rocky Mountain, except for large discrepancies in central and eastern Canada. At a depth of 700 km, the fast axes change along the trajectory of the Farallon slab underneath the Great Lakes region and Gulf of Mexico, which might indicate the development of 2‐D poloidal‐mode mantle flows perpendicular to the strike of the sinking slab within the uppermost lower mantle. Comparisons between model with a western U.S. model from ambient noise tomography and SKS splitting measurements demonstrate a relatively good agreement for the fast axis orientations, considering the usage of different data sets and imaging techniques. However, the absolute magnitude of azimuthal anisotropy in model might be underestimated, especially at greater depths, given the poor agreement on the amplitudes of predicted and observed SKS splitting times. At the current stage, the agreement among different azimuthal anisotropy models at global and continental scales is still poor even for the United States with a dense station coverage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".