MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044032465 · doi:10.1191/0956683605hl784rp

Multiple sources for late-Holocene tsunamis at Discovery Bay, Washington State, USA

2005· article· en· W2044032465 on OpenAlexaff
Harry Williams, Ian Hutchinson, Alan R. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Holocene · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologyHoloceneSubductionBayOceanographyShorePeatPaleontologyArchaeologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine muddy sand beds interrupt a 2500-yr-old sequence of peat deposits beneath a tidal marsh at the head of Discovery Bay on the south shore of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington. An inferred tsunami origin for the sand beds is assessed by means of six criteria. Although all the sand beds contain marine diatoms and almost all the beds display internal stratification, the areal extent of the oldest beds is too limited to confirm their origin as tsunami deposits. The ages of four beds overlap with known late- Holocene tsunamis generated by plate-boundary earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone. Diatom assemblages in peat deposits bracketing these four beds do not indicate concurrent change in elevation at Discovery Bay. Diatoms in the peat bracketing a tsunami bed deposited about 1000 cal. yr BP indicate a few decimeters of submergence, suggesting deformation on a nearby upper-plate fault. Other beds may mark tsunamis caused by more distant upper-plate earthquakes or local submarine landslides triggered by earthquake shaking. Tsunamis from both subduction zone and upper-plate sources pose a significant hazard to shoreline areas in this region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations67
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe HoloceneSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207