MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409442399 · doi:10.3390/geosciences15040146

Comparison of Backprojection Techniques for Rupture Propagation Modelling of the Mw = 7.8 Mainshock Earthquake near Kahramanmaras and the Mw = 7.5 Second-Largest Mainshock near Elbistan, Turkey, 2023

2025· article· en· W4409442399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dimitrios Nikolopoulos, Mahmood Sultan, Aftab Alam, Demetrios Cantzos, Georgios Priniotakis, Michail Papoutsidakis, Farhan Javed, Jamil Siddique, Muhammad Ali Shah, Muhammad Rafique, Panayiotis Yannakopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper utilises teleseismic Z-component data to investigate rupture propagation, extent, and velocity for two very destructive earthquakes in the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ): the Mw = 7.8 earthquake near Kahramanmaras and the largest (Mw = 7.5 s) aftershock at Elbistan (both on 6 February 2023). The extent of the rupture is modelled with beamforming and multichannel signal classification. The teleseismic data are derived from agencies in USA and Canada. The rupture of the Mw = 7.8 earthquake is found to be bi-directional towards the northeast and southwest. Three rupture segments are identified for the Kahramanmaras earthquake between 34.5°–37.5° longitude and 37.0°–37.5° latitude, and another three are identified for the Elbistan earthquake between 36.5°–38.0° longitude and around 38.5° latitude. A total of 299 km is covered in 185 s with rupture velocities between 3.1 km/s and 3.4 km/s. Additionally, the mainshock’s splay and the second-largest aftershock’s rupture are also bidirectional, covering 150 km within 46 s. Five velocity segments are identified, three for the Kahramanmaras and two for the Elbistan earthquakes. Beamforming is efficient for identifying the velocity segments. The findings provide new insights on the evolution of the spatio-temporal rupture of the EAFZ and may serve as a basis for long-term earthquake hazard planning in the area.

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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207