Shallow Seismicity and the Classification of Structures in the Lau Back‐Arc Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Back‐arc basins open in response to subduction processes, which cause extension in the upper plate, usually along trench‐parallel spreading axes. However, global seismic databases reveal that the majority of seismic events in the Lau Basin occur along transcurrent (strike‐slip) rather than extensional faults. To better characterize active deformation in this region, we compared centroid moment tensors (CMTs), calculated for large (Mw > 5), shallow (<30 km) seismic events, to the orientations of seafloor lineaments mapped throughout the Lau Basin. Ship‐based multibeam and satellite altimetry were combined with vertical gravity gradient data to create the lineament map. By comparing the possible focal planes of the CMTs to the orientations of the lineaments, the most likely fault plane solutions were selected, thus classifying the faults and establishing the nature of the highly variable stress regimes in the basin. We resolved the strike, dip, and dip direction of 308 faults and classified 258 additional structures by fault type. The analysis highlights a stress regime that is dominated by a combination of left‐lateral and right‐lateral strike‐slip faults, large‐scale transcurrent motion along rigid crustal‐scale fault zones, and nonrigid diffuse deformation along preexisting seafloor structures, with extension mainly limited to the tips of propagating rifts and spreading centers. By resolving many of the uncertain motions on the mapped lineaments of the Lau Basin, the CMT analysis addresses a number of questions concerning basin‐scale stress regimes and microplate development, complementing GPS measurements, and providing a more complete picture of the complexities of back‐arc basin development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".