MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206377843 · doi:10.1029/2021gl095759

Are Low‐Frequency Earthquake Moments Area‐ or Slip‐Limited? A Rock Record Examination

2022· article· en· W4206377843 on OpenAlexafffund
Randolph T. Williams, J. D. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)SeismologyGeologySubductionMoment magnitude scaleFault planeFault (geology)GeometryTectonicsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The seismic moments observed for low‐frequency earthquakes (LFEs) vary over multiple orders of magnitude, even where the LFEs occur within families of similar events. Although this variability is typically interpreted to record a scale‐limited process at the LFE source, neither the slip per LFE nor the rupture area can be determined from seismological constraints. Here, we examine incrementally developed slickenfibers that have been proposed to record LFEs in exhumed subduction zones. These structures form through repeated, micron‐scale slip events across dilational irregularities in the fault plane, which are punctuated by cementation and sealing in the interstitial space. By statistically analyzing the geometry of inclusion trails delineating slip‐parallel mineral‐growth increments, we constrain the variability in slip per inferred LFE and test end‐member hypotheses regarding the controls on LFE moments. We find that that the slickenfibers exhibit characteristic slip increments, favoring a “slip‐limited” model that requires large variability in LFE rupture areas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→