Forearc faults in northern Cascadia do not accommodate elastic strain driven by the megathrust seismic cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We employ numerical models to explore the connection between subduction zone coupling or megathrust rupture and upper plate faults in the northern Cascadia forearc. Active forearc faults north of the Olympic Peninsula exhibit similar characteristics: west-northwest strike, oblique right-lateral slip senses, and low slip rates (<1 mm/yr), but a potential to generate large (M ~ 7) earthquakes. Previous hypotheses suggest that stress in the upper plate due to interseismic coupling or coseismic rupture along the subduction zone interface could drive permanent forearc strain. To test these hypotheses, we used a 3D boundary element method model to predict slip on the LRDM if interseismic coupling or coeseismic rupture cause deformation. Our model predicts reverse left-lateral slip if the strain results solely from subduction zone coupling, or normal right-lateral slip if these faults accommodate strain during a megathrust rupture. These results contradict the observed fault kinematics. Additionally, if we use our model to mimic strain partitioning, where only the strain from the strike-slip component of subduction zone coupling is accommodated in the forearc, our results are also inconsistent observed fault kinematics. These models challenge the hypothesis that subduction zone coupling or coseismic rupture are the primary driver of permanent forearc deformation in northern Cascadia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".