<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Junle Jiang</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Romain Jolivet</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Mark Simons</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Luis Rivera</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Jean-Paul Ampuero</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Bryan Riel</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Susan E Owen</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Angelyn W Moore</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Sergey V Samsonov</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Francisco Ortega Culaciati</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Sarah E. Minson</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Zacharie Duputel</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2016</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p class="p1"&gt;&lt;span class="s1"&gt;The subduction zone in northern Chile is a well-identified seismic gap that last ruptured in 1877. On 1 April 2014, this region was struck by a large earthquake following a two week long series of foreshocks. This study combines a wide range of observations, including geodetic, tsunami, and seismic data, to produce a reliable kinematic slip model of the &lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s2"&gt;&lt;i&gt;w&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s1"&gt;=8.1 main shock and a static slip model of the &lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s2"&gt;&lt;i&gt;w&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s1"&gt;=7.7 aftershock. We use a novel Bayesian modeling approach that accounts for uncertainty in the Green's functions, both static and dynamic, while avoiding nonphysical regularization. The results reveal a sharp slip zone, more compact than previously thought, located downdip of the foreshock sequence and updip of high-frequency sources inferred by back-projection analysis. Both the main shock and the &lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s2"&gt;&lt;i&gt;w&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="s1"&gt;=7.7 aftershock did not rupture to the trench and left most of the seismic gap unbroken, leaving the possibility of a future large earthquake in the region.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/2015GL065402</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>AGU</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>The Iquique earthquake sequence of April 2014: Bayesian modeling accounting for prediction uncertainty</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>