The 2011 Magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake: Mosaicking the Megathrust from Seconds to Centuries
Science, 2011 · paper · Earth science
Supporting material for a study of the 2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. It details how GPS positioning and deep-sea tsunami records were processed and used to model slip on the fault.
Checked: PDF from s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
6 findings
Reference or label The supplement's tables are cited without the S prefix: "the estimates of slip for each patch in Tables 1 and 2" (page 4) and "are given in Tables 1 and 2" (Fig. S12 caption), while the cover page names them "Tables S1 and S2".
- p. 4 Static Finite Fault Modeling, 4th paragraph
the estimates of slip for each patch in Tables 1 and 2
- p. 19 Fig. S12 caption
are given in Tables 1 and 2
- p. 1 Cover page, contents list
Tables S1 and S2
- p. 4 Static Finite Fault Modeling, fourth paragraph
estimates of slip for each patch in Tables 1 and 2
Judge's note: Viewed pages 1, 4 and 19. The cover lists Tables S1 and S2, and the figures are cited with the prefix throughout (Fig. S11, Fig. S12). Both pointers to the patch coordinates and slip values say Tables 1 and 2. The tables are not in this file (see C001), so the target could not be opened, but the label does not match the supplement's own contents list.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The constant offset is C0 in the GPS model equation and in the symbol list ("C0 : Constant offset"), but the next sentence reads "We perform a weighted least squares fit, solving for d0, MC, MP and AC"; d0 is not defined, and d is the data.
- p. 2 GPS Processing, model equation and symbol list
C0 : Constant offset
- p. 2 GPS Processing, sentence after the symbol list
solving for d0, MC, MP and AC
- p. 2 GPS Processing, sentence after the list of symbols
We perform a weighted least squares fit, solving for
- p. 2 GPS Processing, list of symbols
: Constant offset
Judge's note: Read on the page 2 image: the equation is d(t) = C0 + MC·H(t−tM) + MP·(t−tM)·H(t−tM) + AC·H(t−tA), the list defines C0, and the fit sentence prints d0. The model has four unknowns and d0 stands where C0 should be. Not an extraction artefact.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. S6, one-plane model (bottom row): the fault-plane edge depths are labelled "46 km" and "4 km" in the slip panel but "50 km" and "2 km" in the vertical-displacement panel, with the same dip "10º" in both.
- p. 13 Fig. S6, bottom-left panel (one-plane slip model)
46 km
- p. 13 Fig. S6, bottom-right panel (one-plane vertical displacement)
50 km
- p. 13 Fig. S6, bottom-left panel, north-east corner label
4 km
- p. 13 Fig. S6, bottom-right panel, north-east corner label
2 km
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 13 and an enlarged render of the bottom row from the PDF: left panel reads 46 km (down-dip corner) and 4 km (up-dip corner); right panel reads 50 km and 2 km (italic), both with 10º. The caption presents the two panels as slip and predicted displacement of one model, and says 'Dip angles and depth are given in the northeast corner of each fault plane'. The methods (page 5) give one fault plane 280 km down-dip and no second geometry, so nothing in the text explains the two sets of depths. A 280 km width at 10º spans about 48.6 km of depth (280 x 0.17365), which matches the 50-2 = 48 km of the right panel better than the 46-4 = 42 km of the left, but only the authors can say which labels are right.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. S6, two-plane model (top row): the up-dip edge depth is labelled "5 km" in the slip panel and "4 km" in the vertical-displacement panel; the other labels ("15 km", "50 km", 7º, 15º) agree.
- p. 13 Fig. S6, top-left panel (two-plane slip model)
5 km
- p. 13 Fig. S6, top-right panel (two-plane vertical displacement)
4 km
- p. 13 Fig. S6 bottom row, left vs right
4 km / 2 km
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed page 13 and an enlarged render of the top row from the PDF: left panel reads 50 km, 15 km, 5 km; right panel reads 50 km, 15 km, 4 km, with the same dips 15º and 7º. The caption treats the two panels as one model and the text gives no second geometry. The 1 km difference could be two roundings of one value, but the label for the same edge is printed two ways. The bottom-row discrepancy also mentioned by one reviewer is handled in C021.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Fig. S10: both bottom-row panels are labelled "Mw 8.9 Maule, Chile", while the caption of the same figure says "Bottom row: 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile"; Fig. S7 ("Maule Earthquake, Mw=8.8") and references 9 and 10 also give Mw 8.8.
- p. 17 Fig. S10, bottom-row panel titles (both panels)
Mw 8.9 Maule, Chile
- p. 17 Fig. S10 caption
Bottom row: 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile.
- p. 14 Fig. S7 panel (B) title
(B) Maule Earthquake, Mw=8.8
- p. 14 Fig. S7 panel B title
Maule Earthquake, Mw=8.8
Judge's note: Viewed page 17: both bottom panels read 'Mw 8.9 Maule, Chile' and the caption reads 'Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile'. Viewed page 14: Fig. S7 panel (B) title reads 'Maule Earthquake, Mw=8.8'. Reference titles 9 and 10 (page 20, text layer) say Mw 8.8. Searched the text for any mention of an 8.9 estimate for Maule: none. The magnitude of one event is printed two ways within one figure; the label is the odd one out. Graded S2 as a wrong panel label; the plotted data are not affected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "This approximation is valid because the earthquake rupture velocity is large compared to the tsunami propagation time" compares a velocity with a time.
- p. 3 Preparation and Modeling of Tsunami Records, 2nd paragraph
earthquake rupture velocity is large compared to the tsunami propagation time
- p. 3 Preparation and Modeling of Tsunami Records
the earthquake rupture velocity is large compared to the tsunami propagation time
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Read on the page 3 image. The sentence is dimensionally inconsistent as printed. The intended comparison is either rupture velocity against tsunami propagation velocity, or rupture duration against tsunami propagation time; only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
12 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Reference or label The cover page says "This PDF file includes: ... Tables S1 and S2", but the 24-page file contains no tables: the SOM text is followed by Figs. S1 to S12 (ending on page 19) and then the reference list (pages 20-24).
- p. 1 Cover page, 'This PDF file includes'
Tables S1 and S2
- p. 19 Last page before the reference list (Fig. S12)
Reference ID of each triangular patch used in the fault model.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Viewed the cover page and page 19 (Fig. S12, the last page before the references). A search of the text layer finds the word "Table" only on the cover, in the page 4 text and in the Fig. S12 caption; no table is in the file. The tables may have been posted as separate files or this copy may be incomplete, so this is a query, not a fixed correction.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The cover page lists "References (36–47)", but the SOM text cites reference 35 ("GIPSY-OASIS software (35)") and the reference list prints entry 35 (Zumberge et al., 1997).
- p. 1 Cover page, 'This PDF file includes'
References (36–47)
- p. 2 GPS Processing, first sentence
OASIS software (35)
- p. 23 Reference list
35. J. F. Zumberge, M. B. Heflin
- p. 2 GPS Processing
GIPSY- OASIS software (35)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: whether number 35 is already used in the article's own reference list (for example as its acknowledgments note), which is not among the files. Checked the cover (36–47), page 2 (first SOM citation is 35) and page 23 (entry 35 is Zumberge et al.). In the text layer, (35) is cited only on page 2. Within this file, the SOM-only references start at 35, not 36.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording In the rescaling formula σ* = (σ/σ̄)·RMS(dobs − dfit), following "The formal errors, σ, are rescaled as follows", the symbol σ̄ is not defined.
- p. 2 GPS Processing, rescaling equation
The formal errors, σ, are rescaled as
Judge's note: Page 2 image: the denominator is σ with a bar. The text defines σ, dobs and dfit only. σ̄ is presumably the mean formal error of the series, but the paper does not say so. A minor undefined symbol.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A noun is missing in "plus a linear post-seismic for the mainshock" (for example "post-seismic term").
- p. 2 GPS Processing, 2nd paragraph
plus a linear post-seismic for the mainshock
- p. 2 GPS Processing, second paragraph
the RMS of the residuals after removing the constant and jumps
Judge's note: Read on the page 2 image. The second point in the cluster is also visible and is minor: the text says the errors are rescaled using "the RMS of the residuals after removing the constant and jumps", while the formula uses dobs − dfit from a model that also has the linear post-seismic term. That is loose wording, not a separate error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The aftershock magnitude is written "caused by the M 7.9 aftershock" on page 2 and "For the Mw 7.9 aftershock" on page 5.
- p. 2 Variable definitions
caused by the M 7.9 aftershock
- p. 5 The Mw 7.9 Aftershock
For the Mw 7.9 aftershock
Judge's note: Both forms are on the page images. The event is the same and the value is the same; only the magnitude label differs. Either form could be legitimate.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A noun is missing in "constrained with published seismic tomographic and earthquake hypocenters" (for example "seismic tomographic models" or "seismic tomography").
- p. 3 Fault Geometry, 3rd sentence
constrained with published seismic tomographic and earthquake hypocenters
Judge's note: Read on the page 3 image, Fault Geometry paragraph. As printed, "tomographic" modifies "hypocenters".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. S8 caption writes "USarray (red)" whereas the text writes "the USArray and the European network" (inconsistent capitalisation).
- p. 15 Fig. S8 caption
European seismic array (blue) and USarray (red)
- p. 5 Back projection paragraph
the USArray and the European network
Judge's note: Viewed crops of the Fig. S8 caption (page 15) and the back-projection paragraph (page 5): 'USarray' in the caption, 'USArray' in the text (twice, pages 5-6). Capitalisation only.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. S5(A): the time axes of both columns are labelled "s(t)", while the same axis in Fig. S5(B) is labelled "T(s)"; the symbol and unit are transposed in panel (A).
- p. 11 Fig. S5(A), x-axis label of both columns
s(t)
- p. 12 Fig. S5(B), x-axis labels
T(s)
Judge's note: Viewed pages 11 and 12. Both panel (A) axes run 0-200 and read 's(t)'; all three panel (B) axes run 0-200 and read 'T(s)'. The same stations (KIEV, GNI, PALK, XMAS, SFJD) appear in both panels, so the axis is time in seconds. Meaning is clear to a reader, hence cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. S5 caption has a stray article: "cc > .85 at over a 150 stations at ranges greater than 60 degrees" (should read "at over 150 stations").
- p. 11 Fig. S5 caption, last sentence
cc > .85 at over a 150 stations
- p. 11 Fig. S5 caption
Stations closer than 50 degrees contain the PP-wave in this time window
- p. 11 Fig. S5 caption
cc > .85 at over a 150 stations at ranges greater than 60 degrees
Judge's note: Read the caption on the page 11 image; the stray 'a' is printed. The second point raised (PP contamination 'closer than 50 degrees' versus fits quoted for 'greater than 60 degrees') is not a defect: quoting fit quality for a more conservative distance range does not contradict the 50-degree statement, so it is not confirmed.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Fig. S9 caption: "estimates for the 2010 Maule with red dots" is missing the word "earthquake" after Maule (compare "the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake are indicated by black dots" in the same sentence).
- p. 16 Fig. S9 caption
estimates for the 2010 Maule with red dots
Judge's note: Viewed the caption crop on page 16; the sentence is printed as quoted. Missing word, meaning unaffected.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 33 gives the second author as "K. Sataka" ("Y. Tanioka, K. Sataka, Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami earthquake ..."); the author's name is believed to be Satake.
- p. 22 Reference 33
Y. Tanioka, K. Sataka, Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami earthquake
- p. 22 Reference 33
Y. Tanioka, K. Sataka
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that the co-author of the 1996 Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1549 paper is K. Satake. The page 22 image shows 'K. Sataka' as quoted; the correct spelling cannot be verified from the files (no other occurrence of the name in the document).
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Reference 40: "Seismic sructure and seismogenesis off Sanriku region" — "sructure" should be "structure".
- p. 23 Reference 40
Seismic sructure and seismogenesis off Sanriku region
- p. 22 Ref. 33
K. Sataka
- p. 23 Ref. 40
Seismic sructure and seismogenesis
- p. 22 Ref. 29
M. Masatoshi, J. Mori
Judge's note: Viewed page 23: the misspelling 'sructure' is printed in reference 40, not an extraction artefact. The other items some reviewers bundled here ('Sataka' in ref. 33, 'M. Masatoshi' in ref. 29) are judged in C026 and C027.
Second check: none (judge only)