MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106468226 · doi:10.1029/2020jb020529

Strain Accumulation and Release Rate in Canada: Implications for Long‐Term Crustal Deformation and Earthquake Hazards

2021· article· en· W3106468226 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adebayo Oluwaseun Ojo, Honn Kao, Yan Jiang, M. Craymer, J. A. Henton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsGeologyPost-glacial reboundGeodetic datumSeismologySeismic hazardCrustDeformation (meteorology)Strain rateContinental crustSeismic momentGeodesyGlacial periodGeophysicsTectonicsGeomorphologyFault (geology)Oceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To advance the understanding of crustal deformation and earthquake hazards in Canada, we analyze seismic and geodetic data sets and robustly estimate the crust strain accumulation and release rate by earthquakes. We find that less than 20% of the accumulated strain is released by earthquakes across the study area providing evidence for large‐scale aseismic deformation. We attribute this to glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) in eastern Canada, where predictions from the GIA model account for most of the observed discrepancy between the seismic and the geodetic moment rates. In western Canada, only a small percentage (<20%) of the discrepancy can be attributed to GIA‐related deformation. We suspect that this may reflect the inaccuracy of the GIA model to account for heterogeneity in Earth structure or indicate that the present‐day effect of GIA in western Canada is limited due to the fast response of the upper mantle to the deglaciation of the Cordillera Ice Sheet. At locations of previously identified seismic source zones, we speculate that the unreleased strain is been stored cumulatively in the crust and will be released as earthquakes in the future. The Gutenberg‐Richter model predicts, however, that the recurrence interval can vary significantly in Canada, ranging from decades near plate boundary zones in the west to thousands of years in the stable continental interior. Our attempt to quantify the GIA‐induced deformation provides the necessary first step for the integration of geodetic strain rates in seismic hazard analysis in Canada.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Solid EarthSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207