MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220898876 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-12893

To what extent do slip rates contribute to the seismic activity of faults?

2022· preprint· en· W4220898876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nasrin Tavakolizadeh, Hamzeh Mohammadigheymasi, Luís Matias, Graça Silveira, Rui Fernandes, Nima Dolatabadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic momentSeismologySeismic hazardSlip (aerodynamics)Geodetic datumGeologyGeodesyFault (geology)PhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crustal deformation comprises a combination of seismic energy release occurring by earthquakes and aseismic unloading through creeping or frictional sliding. Efficient segregation of the seismic component attributed to faults is critical in evaluating Seismic Activity Rate (SAR) or Magnitude Frequency Distribution (MFD) of earthquakes in fault-based hazard assessment. The MFDs are routinely calculated by utilizing fault geometry and slip rate, evaluated from geodetic (or geological) data. The slip rates as an integrated representation of elastic and anelastic loadings overestimate the MFDs since earthquakes release only the elastic strain. To work around this problem, the seismic/geodetic moment-rate ratio defined as Seismic Coupling Coefficient (SCC) is incorporated in this study to account for the seismic portion of the total moment rate to calculate MFDs. The parameter has been studied for different tectonic regions worldwide, including the USA, Canada, Iran, Greece, and Italy. We modify the Moment Budget (MB) algorithm introduced by Pace et al. (2016) to weight the total moment rate corresponding to the maximum magnitude (Mmax) generated by the modeled faults by incorporating the SCC. An updated mean recurrence time (Tmean) for the Mmax and its corresponding uncertainty is computed when SCC is incorporated in the calculation. Then, the seismic moment, the SCC weighted Tmean, and its uncertainty are utilized to compute MFDs by balancing the modeled seismic moment rates (by Doubly Truncated Gutenberg-Richter (DTGR) or Characteristic Gaussian (CHG)) and the SCC weighted moment rates. This process is implemented by the Activity Rates (AR) tool of FiSH codes. Fault data of 89 fault segments in Zagros, Iran, are introduced into the algorithm to compute the SCC incorporated MFDs. The acquired fault-based hazard maps are in harmony with the history of seismicity and tectonics of the region, while the total moment rates exaggerate the calculated hazard. Future work involves implementing the processing algorithm on hazard assessment in the Gulf of Guinea. This research contributes to the FCT-funded SHAZAM (Ref. PTDC/CTA-GEO/31475/2017), IDL (Ref. FCT/UIDB/50019/2020), and SIGHT (Ref. PTDC/CTA-GEF/30264/2017) projects. It also uses computational resources provided by C4G (Collaboratory for Geosciences) (Ref. PINFRA/22151/2016).

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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