Fault slip and seismic moment of the 1700 Cascadia earthquake inferred from Japanese tsunami descriptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1700 Cascadia earthquake attained moment magnitude 9 according to new estimates based on effects of its tsunami in Japan, computed coseismic seafloor deformation for hypothetical ruptures in Cascadia, and tsunami modeling in the Pacific Ocean. Reports of damage and flooding show that the 1700 Cascadia tsunami reached 1–5 m heights at seven shoreline sites in Japan. Three sets of estimated heights express uncertainty about location and depth of reported flooding, landward decline in tsunami heights from shorelines, and post‐1700 land‐level changes. We compare each set with tsunami heights computed from six Cascadia sources. Each source is vertical seafloor displacement calculated with a three‐dimensional elastic dislocation model. For three sources the rupture extends the 1100 km length of the subduction zone and differs in width and shallow dip; for the other sources, ruptures of ordinary width extend 360–670 km. To compute tsunami waveforms, we use a linear long‐wave approximation with a finite difference method, and we employ modern bathymetry with nearshore grid spacing as small as 0.4 km. The various combinations of Japanese tsunami heights and Cascadia sources give seismic moment of 1–9 × 1022 N m, equivalent to moment magnitude 8.7–9.2. This range excludes several unquantified uncertainties. The most likely earthquake, of moment magnitude 9.0, has 19 m of coseismic slip on an offshore, full‐slip zone 1100 km long with linearly decreasing slip on a downdip partial‐slip zone. The shorter rupture models require up to 40 m offshore slip and predict land‐level changes inconsistent with coastal paleoseismological evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".