Joint Inversion of Rupture across a Fault Stepover during the 8 August 2017 Mw 6.5 Jiuzhaigou, China, Earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 8 August 2017 Mw 6.5 Jiuzhaigou earthquake occurred in a tectonically fractured region in southwest China. We investigate the multifault coseismic rupture process by jointly analyzing teleseismic, strong-motion, high-rate Global Positioning System, and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) datasets. We clearly identify two right-stepping fault segments and a compressional stepover based on variations in focal mechanisms constrained by coseismic InSAR deformation data. The average geometric parameters of the northwest and southeast segments are strike = 130°/dip = 57° and strike = 151°/dip = 70°, respectively. The rupture model estimated from a joint inversion of the seismic and geodetic datasets indicates that the rupture initiated on the southeastern segment and jumped to the northwestern segment, resulting in distinctive slip patches on the two segments. A 4-km-long coseismic slip gap was identified around the stepover, consistent with the aftershock locations and mechanisms. The right-stepping segmentation and coseismic rupture across the compressional stepover exhibited by the 2017 Jiuzhaigou earthquake are reminiscent of the multifault rupture pattern during the 1976 Songpan earthquake sequence farther south along the Huya fault system in three successive Ms∼7 events. Although the common features of fault geometry and stepover may control the similarity in event locations and focal mechanisms of the 2017 and 1976 sequences, the significantly wider (~15 km) stepover in the 1976 sequence likely prohibited coseismic rupture jumping and hence reduced seismic hazard.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".