MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140609040 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2014-0131

Slipstream: an early Holocene slump and turbidite record from the frontal ridge of the Cascadia accretionary wedge off western Canada and paleoseismic implications

2015· article· en· W2140609040 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
T S Hamilton, Randolph J. Enkin, Michael Riedel, Garry C. Rogers, J. Pohlman, Heather Benway

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaCamosun College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySlumpingTurbidity currentTurbiditeAbyssal plainSedimentary rockGeomorphologySubductionSedimentary structuresPaleontologySeismologyOceanographySedimentSedimentary depositional environmentTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slipstream Slump, a well-preserved 3 km wide sedimentary failure from the frontal ridge of the Cascadia accretionary wedge 85 km off Vancouver Island, Canada, was sampled during Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) John P. Tully cruise 2008007PGC along a transect of five piston cores. Shipboard sediment analysis and physical property logging revealed 12 turbidites interbedded with thick hemipelagic sediments overlying the slumped glacial diamict. Despite the different sedimentary setting, atop the abyssal plain fan, this record is similar in number and age to the sequence of turbidites sampled farther to the south from channel systems along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, with no extra turbidites present in this local record. Given the regional physiographic and tectonic setting, megathrust earthquake shaking is the most likely trigger for both the initial slumping and subsequent turbidity currents, with sediments sourced exclusively from the exposed slump face of the frontal ridge. Planktonic foraminifera picked from the resedimented diamict of the underlying main slump have a disordered cluster of 14 C ages between 12.8 and 14.5 ka BP. For the post-slump stratigraphy, an event-free depth scale is defined by removing the turbidite sediment intervals and using the hemipelagic sediments. Nine 14 C dates from the most foraminifera-rich intervals define a nearly constant hemipelagic sedimentation rate of 0.021 cm/year. The combined age model is defined using only planktonic foraminiferal dates and Bayesian analysis with a Poisson-process sedimentation model. The age model of ongoing hemipelagic sedimentation is strengthened by physical property correlations from Slipstream events to the turbidites for the Barkley Canyon site 40 km south. Additional modelling addressed the possibilities of seabed erosion or loss and basal erosion beneath turbidites. Neither of these approaches achieves a modern seabed age when applying the commonly used regional marine 14 C reservoir age of 800 years (marine reservoir correction ΔR = 400 years). Rather, the top of the core appears to be 400 years in the future. A younger marine reservoir age of 400 years (ΔR = 0 years) brings the top to the present and produces better correlations with the nearby Effingham Inlet paleo-earthquake chronology based only on terrestrial carbon requiring no reservoir correction. The high-resolution dating and facies analysis of Slipstream Slump in this isolated slope basin setting demonstrates that this is also a useful type of sedimentary target for sampling the paleoseismic record in addition to the more studied turbidites from submarine canyon and channel systems. The first 10 turbidites at Slipstream Slump were deposited between 10.8 and 6.6 ka BP, after which the system became sediment starved and only two more turbidites were deposited. The recurrence interval for the inferred frequent early Holocene megathrust earthquakes is 460 ± 140 years, compatible with other estimates of paleoseismic megathrust earthquake occurrence rates along the subduction zone.

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)0.000
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207