MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410013647 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02192-6

Pure dip-slip along the Tuz Gölü Fault Zone accommodates east-west extension of Central Anatolia

2025· article· en· W4410013647 on OpenAlexaff
Gülin Gençoğlu Korkmaz, Janet C. Harvey, Martin Danišík, Lindsay M. Schoenbohm, Axel K. Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsGeologySlip (aerodynamics)SeismologyExtension (predicate logic)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kinematic constraints on faults with slow slip rates often diverge, obscuring their neotectonic significance and seismic hazards. The Tuz Gölü Fault Zone (TGFZ) is a major slow-moving fault accommodating intraplate deformation within Central Anatolia, for which long-term geological and short-term geodetic deformation rates disagree. Here, the Pleistocene–Recent kinematic evolution of the TGFZ is determined by dating dissected lava flows of the Hasandağ stratocone. Combined zircon U-Th and (U-Th)/He ages indicate emplacement between 151 ± 6 ka and 38.8 ± 2.0 ka (2σ uncertainties). Restoring flow levees as tie points across fault scarps yields vertical displacement rates of 0.90 ± 0.06 to 1.23 ± 0.08 mm/a for the most reliable projections, whereas in contrast to previous notions only negligible dextral strike slip at 0.01 ± 0.08 to 0.06 ± 0.08 mm/a is permitted. Predominantly normal faulting without a major strike-slip component for the TGFZ supports ongoing east-west extension without the requirement for shearing due to north-south shortening of Central Anatolia between its bounding megashears as it gradually escapes westward.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207