Effects of Earthquake Recurrence on Localization of Interseismic Deformation Around Locked Strike‐Slip Faults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Localized geodetic deformation of arctan shape around locked strike‐slip faults is widely reported, but there are also important exceptions showing distributed deformation. Understanding the controlling mechanism is important to hazard assessment and geodynamic analysis. Here we use simple finite element viscoelastic earthquake cycle models to investigate the basic mechanics of this process. Our models feature a vertical strike‐slip fault in an elastic layer overlying a viscoelastic substrate of Maxwell or Burgers rheology, with or without a low‐viscosity shear zone representing deeper extension of the fault. We demonstrate that the primary control on the localization of interseismic deformation is the recurrence interval of past earthquakes. Given viscosity, shorter recurrence leads to greater localization, regardless of the rheological model used. The presence of a low‐viscosity deep fault does not change this conclusion, although it tends to lessen localization by promoting faster postseismic stress relaxation. Distributed deformation, although less reported, is a natural consequence of very long recurrence and in theory should be as common as localized deformation. We think that the apparent propensity of the latter is likely associated with the much greater quantity and better quality of geodetic observations from higher‐rate and shorter‐recurrence faults. Our results also show the important role of nearby earthquakes along the same fault. For faults of relatively short recurrence, frequent ruptures of nearby segments, modeled using a migrating rupture sequence, further enhance localization. For faults of very long recurrence, faster near‐fault deformation induced by a recent earthquake may give a false impression of localized interseismic deformation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".