↓ Skip to main content

Missing link between the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults

Overview of attention for article published in Science Advances, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
31 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
57 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Missing link between the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults
Published in
Science Advances, October 2016
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.1601441
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Watt, David Ponce, Tom Parsons, Patrick Hart

Abstract

The next major earthquake to strike the ~7 million residents of the San Francisco Bay Area will most likely result from rupture of the Hayward or Rodgers Creek faults. Until now, the relationship between these two faults beneath San Pablo Bay has been a mystery. Detailed subsurface imaging provides definitive evidence of active faulting along the Hayward fault as it traverses San Pablo Bay and bends ~10° to the right toward the Rodgers Creek fault. Integrated geophysical interpretation and kinematic modeling show that the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults are directly connected at the surface-a geometric relationship that has significant implications for earthquake dynamics and seismic hazard. A direct link enables simultaneous rupture of the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults, a scenario that could result in a major earthquake (M = 7.4) that would cause extensive damage and loss of life with global economic impact.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 32%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 305. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2024.
All research outputs
#115,361
of 25,856,138 outputs
Outputs from Science Advances
#1,105
of 12,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,319
of 324,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science Advances
#15
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,856,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 119.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.