MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W170851672

Tsunami hazard assessment for the Azores archipelago: a historical review

2010· review· en· W170851672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nuno M. Cabral, Teresa Ferreira, G. Queiroz

Bibliographic record

VenueEGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismologyGeologyEpicenterArchipelagoLandslideSubmarine landslideRiftSubmarineGeographyOceanographyTectonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From all the studied tsunami events it was identified the occurrence of some teletsunamis, among which the most relevant was triggered by the 1st November 1755 Lisbon earthquake, with an epicenter SW of Portugal, which killed 6 people in Terceira island. It is also noted the teletsunami generated by the 1761 earthquake, located in the same region as the latest, and the one generated in 1929 by an earthquake-triggered submarine landslide in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. From the local events, originated in the Azores, the most significant were the tsunamis triggered by 1757 and 1980 earthquakes, both associated with the Terceira Rift dynamics. In the first case the waves may also be due to earthquake-triggered. With respect to tsunamis triggered by sea cliffs landslides it is important to mention the 1847 Quebrada Nova and the 1980 Rocha Alta events, both located in the Flores Island. The 1847 event is the deadliest tsunami recorded in Azores since 10 people died in Flores and Corvo islands in result of the propagated wave.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEGU General Assembly Conference AbstractsSame topicGeological and Geophysical Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207