Implications of slow fault slip for hydraulic-fracturing-induced seismicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the discovery of slow-slip phenomena, scientific understanding of the behavior of active fault systems has been transformed significantly. It is now recognized that tectonic fault systems are characterized by a spectrum of slip behavior, from “regular” (stick-slip) earthquakes that radiate elastic wave energy and occur on a timescale of seconds, to slow-slip events with durations ranging from minutes to years. More recently, slow-slip phenomena have been observed and modeled in association with injection-induced seismicity. This includes evidence for predominantly slow fault slip during injection that triggered dynamic rupture elsewhere on a fault. In the case of hydraulic fracturing, slow-slip behavior is consistent with the frictional characteristics of faults in clay-rich rocks. A change in pore pressure or slip rate can cause a fault to transition from slow to unstable slip. Through real-time monitoring of slip-slip processes and, potentially, the development of operational adjustments to reduce the hazard of damaging ground motions, a better understanding of slow-slip processes could contribute to improved risk mitigation for induced earthquakes. Effective tools for direct observation of slow-slip processes include tiltmeters, strainmeters, global navigation satellite systems, interferometric synthetic aperture radar, and distributed fiber-optic sensing.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".