MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205812252 · doi:10.1029/2021gl096974

Upper Plate Structure and Megathrust Properties in the Shumagin Gap Near the July 2020 M7.8 Simeonof Event

2022· article· en· W4205812252 on OpenAlexaff
D. J. Shillington, Anne Bécel, M. R. Nedimović

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeologySubductionSeismologyEpisodic tremor and slipSlip (aerodynamics)CrustPlate tectonicsTectonicsInterplate earthquakeConvergent boundaryInduced seismicityGeophysicsOceanic crust

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Subduction zone architecture and properties are thought to control megathrust slip behavior, but few constraints on crustal structure and megathrust properties are available at sufficient resolution and depth, hindering understanding of linkages between structure and behavior. Here we present a P ‐wave seismic velocity model based on wide‐angle seismic data integrated with collocated reflection imaging in the weakly coupled Shumagin Gap in the Alaska subduction zone, where a M7.8 occurred in July 2020. We show that this earthquake occurred near and below the Moho of the overriding plate where the megathrust is characterized by a 3‐ to 5‐km‐thick reflection band interpreted to represent tectonic mixing. The rheological heterogeneity of the plate boundary near and below the Moho could account for abundant interplate seismicity, repeated M7.x events, and patchiness of the 2020 rupture. Velocity variations in the overriding continental crust imply changes in rigidity that could further influence megathrust slip.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207