MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392604773 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-12430

Tectonic “quakes”, scaling and the turbulence of solids

2024· preprint· en· W4392604773 on OpenAlexaff
S. Lovejoy, Andrej Spiridonov, Lauras Balakauskas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceScalingTectonicsGeologyMechanicsPhysicsSeismologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over thirty years ago, Y. Kagan proposed that seismicity is “the turbulence of solids”. Indeed, fluid turbulence and seismicity have many common features: they are both highly nonlinear with huge numbers of degrees of freedom. Beyond that, Kagan recognized that they are both riddled with scaling laws in space and in time as well as displaying power law extreme variability and – we could add – multifractal statistics.Kagan was referring to seismicity as usually conceived, as a sudden rupture process occurring over very short time periods. We argue that even at million year time scales, that the movement of tectonic plates is “quake-like” and is quantitatively close to seismicity, yet caused by relatively smooth mantle convection fluid. To demonstrate this, we analyse the GPlates data base of 1000 point trajectories over the last 200 Myrs, analyzing the statistics of the dynamically important vector velocity differences where Dr is the great circle distance between two points and Dt is the corresponding time lag. The longitudinal and transverse velocity components are analysed separately. The longitudinal scaling of the mean longitudinal difference follows the scaling law ≈ Dr^H with H close to the theoretically predicted value H = 1. This high value implies that mean fluctuations vary relatively smoothly with distance. Yet at the same time, the intermittency exponent C1 is extremely high (C1 ≈ 0.5) implying that from time to time there are enormous “jumps” in velocity. For comparison, laminar (nonturbulent) flow has H = 1 and is not intermittent (C1 = 0), fully developed isotropic fluid turbulence has the (less smooth) value H = 1/3 (Kolmolgorov) but with non-negligible intermittency C1 ≈ 0.07 and seismicity has very large C1 ≈ 1.3. Our study thus quantitatively shows how smooth fluid-like behaviour can co-exist with highly intermittent quake-like behaviour.We find that the outer spatial scale is near the size of the Earth (≈15000km) whereas the outer time scale is ≈60Myrs. We show that the statistics are multifractal with a very large intermittency parameter that is close to that of seismicity determined at sub-decadal time scales. The transverse scale function is the 2/3 power of the longitudinal scale function, the transverse intermittency exponent (C1 ) is reduced by this factor. The temporal scaling of the mean fluctuations of both the longitudinal and transverse components is close to a ½ power of the time lag: Dr≈Dt^(1/2). However since the spatial scaling of the longitudinal and transverse components are different, we obtain two somewhat different space-time diagrams. We link the parameter estimates to fundamental mantle convection parameters, and we make corresponding multifractal simulations.Finally, we discuss the implications for the megaclimate regime, including macro-evolution. Both megaclimate and macroevolution of global diversity are scaling processes with H>0 characterized by intermittent — climate “events”, such as P-Tr hyperthermal, in the case of former, and mass extinctions and originations in the case of latter. The tectonic scaling, and the extreme multifractal behavior grounds both—the long-term climate, and the biological evolution on the first principles of scaling in macroscopic physical systems.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→