The importance of nodal plane orientation diversity for earthquake focal mechanism stress inversions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inversions of earthquake focal mechanisms are among the most accessible and reliable methods for determining crustal stress. However, the use of this method varies widely, and the assumptions that underpin it are often violated, potentially compromising stress estimates. We investigate the consequences of violating the little-studied assumption that the focal mechanisms have diverse orientations. Our approach is to employ data-informed synthetic mechanisms, with nodal plane orientations defined by recent earthquake lineaments in the Midland Basin, western Texas, and rakes consistent with slip in the mapped stress field. Using both the traditional stress inversion method that assumes constant shear stress magnitudes on the causative faults as well as a recently published variable shear stress method, we show that low fault plane diversity can cause maximum horizontal stress ( S Hmax ) orientation and relative principal stress magnitude (faulting regime) estimates to differ markedly from the true values. This problem is compounded for catalogues with even modest amounts of noise (≤15°) or few (e.g. 20) mechanisms. Significantly, traditional approaches for quantifying uncertainty such as the bootstrap can severely underestimate the true uncertainty under these circumstances. To remedy this, we provide simple tools to quantify nodal plane orientation diversity and stress inversion reliability.
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 | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".