MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385582237 · doi:10.1029/2023gl104787

Dynamic Rupture Process of the 2023 <i>Mw</i> 7.8 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake (SE Türkiye): Variable Rupture Speed and Implications for Seismic Hazard

2023· article· en· W4385582237 on OpenAlexaff
Zijia Wang, Wenqiang Zhang, Tuncay Taymaz, Zhongqiu He, Tianhong Xu, Zhenguo Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeologySeismic hazardWaveformFault (geology)Earthquake ruptureEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We considered various non‐uniformities such as branch faults, rotation of stress field directions, and changes in tectonic environments to simulate the dynamic rupture process of the 6 February 2023 Mw 7.8 Kahramanmaraş earthquake in SE Türkiye. We utilized near‐fault waveform data, GNSS static displacements, and surface rupture to constrain the dynamic model. The results indicate that the high initial stress accumulated in the Kahramanmaraş‐Çelikhan seismic gap leads to the successful triggering of the East Anatolian Fault (EAF) and the supershear rupture in the northeast segment. Due to the complexity of fault geometry, the rupture speed along the southeastern segment of the EAF varied repeatedly between supershear and subshear, which contributed to the unexpectedly strong ground motion. Furthermore, the triggering of the EAF reminds us to be aware of the risk of seismic gaps on major faults being triggered by secondary faults, which is crucial to prevent significant disasters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations84
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207