MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Late Pleistocene to Holocene transtension in the northern Cascadia forearc: Evidence from surface ruptures along the Beaufort Range fault

2023· preprint· en· W4379654054 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emerson M. Lynch, Christine Regalla, Kristin Morell, Nicolas Harrichhausen, Lucinda J. Leonard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTranstensionForearcFault scarpSeismologySubductionFault (geology)Slip (aerodynamics)HoloceneQuaternaryStress fieldPaleontologyTectonicsSinistral and dextral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The active deformation field in subduction forearcs provides critical information about the stress and strain state of the upper plate and its potential for seismogenesis. However, these properties are challenging to quantify in most subduction systems, and in the northern Cascadia forearc, few faults have been identified that can be used to reconstruct the upper plate deformation field. Here we investigate the slip history of the Beaufort Range fault (BRF) on Vancouver Island. This fault was proposed to host the 1946 M7.3 Vancouver Island earthquake, but no surface rupture or evidence of Quaternary activity has been documented, and the stress and strain conditions that promoted this event are poorly understood. We provide the first evidence that the BRF is active, using newly-collected lidar to map topographic scarps along the fault system and to reconstruct slip vectors from offset geomorphic markers. Quaternary deposits and landforms that show increasing magnitude of displacement with age provide evidence for at least three M ~6.5-7.5 earthquakes since ~15 ka, with the most recent event occurring <3-4 ka. Kinematic inversions of offset geomorphic markers show that the BRF accommodates right-lateral transtension along a steeply NE-dipping fault. This fault geometry and kinematics are similar to those modeled for the 1946 earthquake, suggesting that the BRF is a candidate source fault for this event. We find that the kinematics of the BRF are consistent over decadal to millennial timescales, suggesting that this portion of the northern Cascadia forearc has accommodated transtension over multiple earthquake cycles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→