ArticleScientific reports2024
Insights on earthquake nucleation revealed by numerical simulation and unsupervised machine learning of laboratory-scale earthquake.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding earthquake nucleation is vital for predicting and mitigating seismic events, saving lives, and enhancing construction practices in earthquake-prone areas. Cascade triggering and preslip triggering are prevalent theories, posing challenges in differentiation based on field observations. Our study employs a novel unsupervised machine learning pipeline, integrating macroscopic- and grain-scale data from stick-slip experiments in a discrete element method (DEM) framework. Running 27 simulations, we cluster foreshocks and mainshocks separately and assess their correlation. The study supports the cascade triggering model on the macro-scale, as we did not observe any scaling between nucleation parameters and the mainshock size. On the other hand, further grain-scale analysis identifies that, separate from Coulomb stress transfer, there is an additional mechanism related to shear stress accumulation on the fault, which is likely the preslip triggering. Overall, while foreshocks may not directly influence the trend at which contact force evolves, they could prime the fault for dynamic rupture by increasing the proportion of contacts accumulating shear stresses. Our findings infer the possible coexistence of the two theorized mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.