Focusing Effects of Teleseismic Wavefields by the Subducting Plate beneath Cascadia: Evidence for Slab Continuity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic wave amplitudes have tremendous sensitivity to subduction structure; however, they are affected by attenuation, scattering and focusing, and have therefore been sparsely used compared with traveltimes. We measure and model teleseismic body wave amplitudes recorded at a dense broadband array in the Washington Cascades (iMUSH). These data show anomalous amplitude variations with complex azimuthal dependence at the low frequency of 0.05 Hz, accompanied by significant multipathing. We demonstrate using spectral-element numerical simulations that focusing of the teleseismic wavefield by the Juan de Fuca slab is responsible for some of the amplitude anomalies. The focusing effects can contaminate the apparent differential attenuation measurements and produce at least 20% of the inferred attenuation signal. The focusing results in complex azimuthal patterns that produce different phase and amplitude variations than does intrinsic attenuation, which should allow separation of elastic (focusing) and anelastic effects. Our results indicate that the amplitudes are sensitive to the subducting slab geometry and subduction structure, and can be used to refine seismic images. Ubiquitous focusing effects are observed along the arc, suggesting a continuous Juan de Fuca slab from Canada to northern California.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".