MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127960535 · doi:10.1130/g48461.1

Is the Eastern Denali fault still active?

2021· article· en· W3127960535 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Min-Hee Choi, David W. Eaton, Eva Enkelmann

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologySeismologyAftershockInduced seismicityTransform faultFault (geology)Active faultStrike-slip tectonicsRelocationSlip (aerodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Denali fault, a transcurrent fault system that extends from northwestern Canada across Alaska toward the Bering Sea, is partitioned into segments that exhibit variable levels of historical seismicity. A pair of earthquakes (M 6.2 and 6.3) on 1 May 2017, in proximity to the Eastern Denali fault (EDF), exhibited source mechanisms and stress conditions inconsistent with expectations for strike-slip fault activation. Precise relocation of ∼1500 aftershocks revealed distinct fault strands that are oblique to the EDF. Calculated patterns of Coulomb stress show that the first earthquake likely triggered the second one. The EDF parallels the Fairweather transform, which separates the obliquely colliding Yakutat microplate from North America. In our model, inboard transfer of stress is deforming and shortening the mountainous region between the EDF and the Fairweather transform. This is supported by historical seismicity concentrated southwest of the EDF, suggesting that it now represents a structural boundary that controls regional deformation but is no longer an active fault.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0100.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207