Paleoliquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| September 01, 2015 Paleoliquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand Sarah H. Bastin; Sarah H. Bastin † Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8014, New Zealand †sarah.bastin@pg.canterbury.ac.nz Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Mark C. Quigley; Mark C. Quigley Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8014, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Kari Bassett Kari Bassett Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8014, New Zealand Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar GSA Bulletin (2015) 127 (9-10): 1348–1365. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31174.1 Article history received: 26 Jul 2014 rev-recd: 12 Dec 2014 accepted: 25 Feb 2015 first online: 08 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Sarah H. Bastin, Mark C. Quigley, Kari Bassett; Paleoliquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand. GSA Bulletin 2015;; 127 (9-10): 1348–1365. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/B31174.1 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyGSA Bulletin Search Advanced Search Abstract Liquefaction during the 2010 moment magnitude (Mw) 7.1 Darfield earthquake and large aftershocks (known as the Canterbury earthquake sequence) caused severe damage to land and infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand. Liquefaction occurred at Mw-weighted peak ground accelerations (PGA7.5) as low as 0.06g at highly susceptible sites. Trenching investigations conducted at two sites in eastern Christchurch enabled documentation of the geologic expressions of recurrent liquefaction and determination of whether evidence of pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction is present. Excavation to water table depths (∼1–2 m below surface) across sand blow vents and fissures revealed multiple generations of Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction "feeder" dikes that crosscut Holocene-to-recent fluvial and anthropogenic stratigraphy. Canterbury earthquake sequence dikes crosscut and intrude oxidized and weathered dikes and sills at both sites that are interpreted as evidence of pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction. Crosscutting relationships combined with 14C dating constrain the timing of the pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction to post–A.D. 1660 to pre–ca. A.D. 1905 at one site, and post–A.D. 1415 to pre–ca. A.D. 1910 at another site. The PGA7.5 of five well-documented historical earthquakes that caused regional damage between 1869 and 1922 are approximated for the study sites using a New Zealand specific ground motion prediction equation. Only the June 1869 Mw ∼4.8 Christchurch earthquake produces a median modeled PGA7.5 that exceeds the PGA7.5 0.06g threshold for liquefaction. Prehistoric earthquakes sourced from regional faults, including the 1717 Alpine fault Mw ∼7.9 ± 0.3 and ca. 500–600 yr B.P. Mw ≥ 7.1 Porters Pass fault earthquakes, provide additional potential paleoseismic sources for pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction. The recognition of pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction in late Holocene sediments is consistent with hazard model-based predicted return times of PGAs exceeding the liquefaction triggering threshold in Christchurch. Residential development in eastern Christchurch from ca. 1860 to 2005 occurred in areas where geologic evidence for pre–Canterbury earthquake sequence liquefaction was present, highlighting the potential of paleoliquefaction studies to predict locations of future liquefaction and to contribute to seismic hazard assessments and land-use planning. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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) | 0.000 | 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".