Near-source observations and modeling of the Kuril Islands tsunamis of 15 November 2006 and 13 January 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Two major earthquakes near the Central Kuril Islands (Mw=8.3 on 15 November 2006 and Mw=8.1 on 13 January 2007) generated trans-oceanic tsunamis recorded over the entire Pacific Ocean. The strongest oscillations, exceeding several meters, occurred near the source region of the Kuril Islands. Tide gauge records for both tsunamis have been thoroughly examined and numerical models of the events have been constructed. The models of the 2006 and 2007 events include two important advancements in the simulation of seismically generated tsunamis: (a) the use of the finite failure source models by Ji (2006, 2007) which provide more detailed information than conventional models on spatial displacements in the source areas and which avoid uncertainties in source extent; and (b) the use of the three-dimensional Laplace equation to reconstruct the initial tsunami sea surface elevation (avoiding the usual shallow-water approximation). The close agreement of our simulated results with the observed tsunami waveforms at the open-ocean DART stations support the validity of this approach. Observational and model findings reveal that energy fluxes of the tsunami waves from the source areas were mainly directed southeastward toward the Hawaiian Islands, with relatively little energy propagation into the Sea of Okhotsk. A marked feature of both tsunamis was their high-frequency content, with typical wave periods ranging from 2–3 to 15–20 min. Despite certain similarities, the two tsunamis were essentially different and had opposite polarity: the leading wave of the November 2006 trans-oceanic tsunami was positive, while that for the January 2007 trans-oceanic tsunami was negative. Numerical modeling of both tsunamis indicates that, due to differences in their seismic source properties, the 2006 tsunami was more wide-spread but less focused than the 2007 tsunami.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".