Late Holocene Rupture of the Northern San Andreas Fault and Possible Stress Linkage to the Cascadia Subduction Zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We relate the late Holocene northern San Andreas fault (NSAF) paleoseismic history developed using marine sediment cores along the northern California continental margin to a similar dataset of cores collected along the Cascadia margin, including channels from Barclay Canyon off Vancouver Island to just north of Monterey Bay. Stratigraphic correlation and evidence of synchronous triggering imply earthquake origin, and both temporal records are compatible with onshore paleoseismic data. In order to make comparisons between the temporal earthquake records from the NSAF and Cascadia, we refine correlations of southern Cascadia great earthquakes, including the land paleoseismic record. Along the NSAF during the last ∼2800 yr, 15 turbidites, including one likely from the great 1906 earthquake, establish an average repeat time of ∼200 yr, similar to the onshore value of ∼240 yr. The combined land and marine paleoseismic record from the southern Cascadia subduction zone includes a similar number of events during the same period. While the average recurrence interval for full-margin Cascadia events is ∼520 yr, the southern Cascadia margin has a repeat time of ∼220 yr, similar to that of the NSAF. Thirteen of the 15 NSAF events were preceded by Cascadia events by ∼0–80 yr, averaging 25–45 yr (as compared to ∼80–400 yr by which Cascadia events follow the NSAF). Based on the temporal association, we model the coseismic and cumulative postseismic deformation from great Cascadia megathrust events and compute related stress changes along the NSAF in order to test the possibility that Cascadia earthquakes triggered the penultimate, and perhaps other, NSAF events. The Coulomb failure stress (CFS) resulting from viscous deformation related to a Cascadia earthquake over ∼60 yr does not contribute significantly to the total CFS on the NSAF. However, the coseismic deformation increases CFS on the northern San Andreas fault (NSAF) by up to about 9 bars offshore of Point Delgada, most likely enough to trigger that fault to fail in north-to-south propagating ruptures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".