MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409770967 · doi:10.1029/2025gl115446

Downdip Variations in Megathrust Seismogenic Behavior in the Japan Trench Subduction Zone Affected by Mantle Wedge Serpentinite

2025· article· en· W4409770967 on OpenAlexaff
Kelin Wang, Jiangheng He

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubductionGeologyTrenchMantle wedgeWedge (geometry)SeismologyMantle (geology)GeochemistryTectonicsMaterials scienceLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is important to seek geological context for the geophysically observed downdip segmentation of seismogenic behavior of subduction megathrusts. Here we focus on how mantle wedge serpentinite may affect megathrust seismogenesis at Japan Trench—an end‐member cold subduction zone. Based on thermal modeling constrained by heat flow observations and serpentine frictional behavior reported in the literature, we hypothesize the presence of a lizardite‐rich soft barrier starting at the mantle wedge corner (MWC) and an antigorite‐rich seismic zone farther downdip. This soft‐barrier hypothesis can explain why two groups of megathrust events are roughly divided by the MWC yet the giant 2011 Tohoku‐oki earthquake ruptured through the MWC. Seismogenic antigorite patches embedded in semi‐viscous to viscous fault zone materials can explain other observed seismic phenomena of the deeper part of the megathrust such as aftershocks, persistent repeating earthquakes, and strong radiation of short‐period energy in great earthquakes.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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