Late Holocene rupture history of the Ash Hill fault, Eastern California Shear Zone, and the potential for seismogenic strain transfer between nearby faults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how fault systems interact and transfer strain over seismogenic timescales (seconds to ka) requires temporal records of past ruptures along adjacent and intersecting fault networks. Here we document the record of Late Holocene ruptures as recorded in the geomorphology of alluvial deposits along the Ash Hill fault, in the Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ). We leverage a multi‐faceted approach to evaluate the relative timing of Ash Hill fault ruptures to those of nearby faults in the ECSZ. We determine the number and timing of Late Holocene earthquakes on the Ash Hill fault using high‐resolution tectono‐geomorphic mapping, a locally calibrated alluvial fan stratigraphy, feldspar luminescence dating, and fault offset analysis from field observations, LiDAR, and drone‐based digital surface elevation models. We find evidence for three surface‐rupturing earthquakes that have occurred since ~4 ka, each with ~1.0 ± 0.2 m of oblique slip per event (Mw ~ 6.9–7.0), and we constrain the timing of these earthquakes by dating deposits that bracket each event. The timing of these three ruptures is similar to the paleoseismic record along the adjacent range‐bounding fault in southern Panamint Valley. Specifically, the two adjacent faults exhibit similar numbers of earthquakes during the Late Holocene, with similar recurrence intervals and rupture timing. These data suggest that it is possible that these two faults have ruptured in the same or closely temporally related events throughout the Late Holocene. Similar spatio‐temporal clustered earthquakes have been recognized in both historic and paleoseismic records in the region, and such behaviour may be common in complexly interlinked fault networks, like those that exist in the ECSZ.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".