MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094674357 · doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2013.07.008

A massive sensitive clay landslide, Quyon Valley, southwestern Quebec, Canada, and evidence for a paleoearthquake triggering mechanism

2013· article· en· W2094674357 on OpenAlexaffabout
G R Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideGeologyRadiocarbon datingInduced seismicityEpicenterDebrisHoloceneSeismologySlumpingSedimentGeomorphologyPaleontologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A landslide debris field covering ~ 31 km 2 , the presence of large sediment blocks up to hundreds of meters long, and the exposure of deposits of a single landslide along the incised course of the Quyon River are evidence of a massive failure of sensitive Champlain Sea glaciomarine sediments along the lower Quyon Valley, southwestern Quebec, Canada. Seventeen radiocarbon ages indicate that the failure occurred between 980 and 1060 cal yr BP. Twenty-four additional radiocarbon ages reveal that nine landslides within a 65-km belt in the Quyon"Ottawa area also occurred at approximately this time. In combination, the contemporaneous occurrence of ten landslides between 980 and 1060 cal yr BP, the setting or morphology of five of the other failures, and the close proximity of two of the failures to the Quyon Valley landslide provide circumstantial evidence of a paleoearthquake-triggering mechanism. The paleoearthquake is estimated to be M w ~ 6.1 or larger, with the epicenter within the West Quebec Seismic Zone. A common earthquake-triggering mechanism for the three largest landslides in eastern Canada suggests a close link between massive failures of sensitive glaciomarine sediments and the regional seismicity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207