Aftershock distributions, moment tensors and stress evolution of the 2016 Iniskin and 2018 Anchorage <i>M</i>w 7.1 Alaskan intraslab earthquakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY We present a detailed study of two Mw 7.1 intraslab earthquakes that occurred in southern Alaska: the Iniskin earthquake of 24 January 2016, and the Anchorage earthquake of 30 November 2018. We have relocated and recovered moment tensors for hundreds of aftershocks following both events, and inverted for stress histories. The aftershock distribution of the Iniskin earthquake suggests that the rupture propagated updip along a fault dipping steeply into the Pacific Plate and terminated at a stratigraphic horizon, inferred to be either the interface or Moho of the subducting slab. In addition, four earthquakes ruptured the main fault in the preceding two years and had similar moment tensors to the mainshock. This evidence suggests that the mainshock likely reactivated a pre-existing, outer-rise fault. The Anchorage earthquake sequence is complex due to its location near the boundary of the subducting Yakutat and Pacific plates, as evidenced by the aftershock distribution. Aftershock hypocentres form two main clusters that appear to correspond to orthogonal, conjugate faults, consistent with the two nodal planes of the dominant focal mechanisms. Both geographic groups display many focal mechanisms similar to the mainshock, which could indicate simultaneous rupture on conjugate planes. The time dependence in stress ratio for the Iniskin sequence can be interpreted in terms of pore-pressure evolution within the mainshock fault zone. In particular, our observations are consistent with a dehydration-assisted transfer mechanism where fluids are produced during rupture through antigorite dehydration and raised to high pore pressures through matrix collapse and/or thermal pressurization. The Anchorage sequence exhibits a more complex stress ratio evolution that may be associated with stress adjustments within a distributed fault network, or reflect a strongly heterogeneous stress field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".