Dating Strong Prehistoric Earthquakes and Estimating Their Recurrence Interval Applying Radiocarbon Analysis and Dendroseismological Approach – Case Study from SE Altai (Russia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquakes are some of the most disastrous geohazards. The recurrence interval of strong earthquakes is a crucial characteristic for seismic hazard risk assessment. In this context absolute age determination of ancient earthquakes is one of the key problems. This paper presents the results of our geomorphological, paleoseismogeological, and geochronological investigations in seismically active southeastern part of Russian Altai. To specify the Holocene recurrence interval of strong earthquakes in the SE Altai we used radiocarbon and tree ring analysis. Twenty-five new radiocarbon ages were obtained for previously unknown effects of prehistoric earthquakes located near the southern fault boundary of the Chagan-Uzun massif and were reactivated during the 2003 Chuya earthquake. Results obtained argue for high regional seismicity in the second half of the Holocene and indicate the Chagan-Uzun massif to be one of the major seismogenic neotectonic structure within the SE Altai. Strong earthquakes occurred here about 600-700, 1,300-1,500, 2,400-2,700, and 3,400-3,700 and 3,800-4,200 cal. BP. Together with the previously published radiocarbon dates these data clarify the chronology of seismic events within the SE Altai. The specified recurrence interval of strong earthquakes for the SE Altai is about 400 years during the last 4,000 years. Numerous evidences of several seismic excitations were found in sediments from the largest landslide triggered by the 2003 Chuya earthquake. This argues for repeated activization of the same earthquake source zones in the SE Altai during the Holocene. Seismic activization of the fault boundaries of the Chagan-Uzun massif in the late Pleistocene-Holocene, as well as in 2003, was accompanied by its rotation counter clock-wise with the prevailing displacement along dextral strike-slip faults of NW direction. This is supported by results of our geomorphological investigations and previously unknown ground effects of the 2003 Chuya earthquake in the central part of the Chagan-Uzun massif.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".