MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799536474 · doi:10.1002/2017gl075839

Seafloor Displacement After the 2011 Tohoku‐oki Earthquake in the Northern Japan Trench Examined by Repeated Bathymetric Surveys

2017· article· en· W2799536474 on OpenAlexaff
Toshiya Fujiwara, Christian dos Santos Ferreira, A. K. Bachmann, Michael Strasser, Gerold Wefer, Tianhaozhe Sun, Toshiya Kanamatsu, Shuichi Kodaira

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyMinistry of Education
KeywordsTrenchGeologyBathymetrySeafloor spreadingSeismologySubmarine pipelineSlip (aerodynamics)Displacement (psychology)Submarine landslideVertical displacementLandslideGeomorphologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We conducted multibeam bathymetric surveys crossing the northern Japan Trench offshore Sanriku and examined seafloor displacement by means of the difference in bathymetry before and after the 11 March 2011 Tohoku‐oki earthquake. The seafloor displacements were less than several meters in vertical displacement and less than 20 m in trench‐normal horizontal displacement; consequently, lower amplitude seafloor displacements were evaluated. Comparatively, the landward lower slope near the trench was uplifted, the middle slope was subsided, and the midslope terrace was depressed after the earthquake. Therefore, localized very large fault slip or very large submarine landslide is unlikely. Instead, smaller uplift of the lower slope near the trench extending broader along the trench seems to be plausible explanation for the devastating tsunami source in the northern Japan Trench area.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations51
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207