MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013981126 · doi:10.1029/2020gl088136

The 2020 <i>M</i><sub><i>w</i></sub> 6.8 Elazığ (Turkey) Earthquake Reveals Rupture Behavior of the East Anatolian Fault

2020· article· en· W3013981126 on OpenAlexafffund
Léa Pousse‐Beltran, Edwin Nissen, Eric Bergman, Musavver Didem Cambaz, Élyse Gaudreau, Ezgi Karasözen, Fengzhou Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsAftershockSeismologyGeologySlip (aerodynamics)North Anatolian FaultEarthquake ruptureFault (geology)SubductionPlate tectonicsGeodesyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 2020 M w 6.8 Elazığ earthquake was the largest along the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) in over a century, providing valuable insights into its rupture behavior. We use satellite geodesy and seismology to detail the mainshock rupture, postseismic deformation, and aftershocks. The mainshock propagated mostly westward at ∼ 2 km/s from a nucleation point on an abrupt ∼ 10° fault bend. Only one end of the rupture corresponds to an established EAF segment boundary, and the earthquake may have propagated into the slip zone of the 1874 M ∼ 7.1 Gölcuk Gölu earthquake. It exhibits a pronounced ( ∼ 80%) shallow slip deficit, only a small proportion of which is recovered by early aseismic afterslip. The slow rupture velocity, shallow slip deficit, and minimal afterslip are characteristic of earthquakes hosted by faults of low‐to‐intermediate structural maturity, indicating that faults continue to evolve in important ways even as they accrue cumulative offsets of tens of kilometers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations97
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207