The California tsunami of 15 June 2005 along the coast of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An Mw = 7.2 earthquake occurred on 15 June 2005 (utc) seaward of northern California off the west coast of North America. Based on the earthquake location and source parameters, the West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami warning for the region extending from the California‐Mexico border to northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia (the first tsunami warning for this region since the 1994 Mw = 8.2 Shikotan earthquake). Six tide gauges on the west coast recorded tsunami waves from this event, with a maximum trough‐to‐crest wave height of 27.7 cm observed at Crescent City, California. Waves of 2.5 to 6.5 cm were measured at the five other sites: Port Orford (Oregon), North Spit and Arena Cove (California), and Tofino and Bamfield (British Columbia). The open‐ocean Deep‐ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys, 46404 and 46405, recorded tsunami waves of 0.5 and 1.5 cm, respectively, closely matching wave heights derived from numerical models. Incoming tsunami wave energy was mainly at periods of 10 to 40 min. The observed tsunami wave field is interpreted in terms of edge (trapped) and leaky (non‐trapped) waves and a “trapping coefficient” is introduced to estimate the relative contribution of these two wave types. Due to the high (3000 m) water depth in the source area, approximately two‐thirds of the total tsunami energy went to leaky wave modes and only one‐third to edge wave modes. The improved response to and preparedness for the 2005 California tsunami compared to the 1994 Shikotan tsunami is attributable, in part, to the operational capability provided by the open‐ocean bottom‐pressure recorder (DART) system, higher quality coastal tide gauges, and the effective use of numerical models to simulate real‐time tsunamis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".