MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800369412 · doi:10.1144/sp477.28

Modelling the 1929 Grand Banks slump and landslide tsunami

2018· article· en· W2800369412 on OpenAlexaffabout
Finn Løvholt, Irena Schulten, D. Mosher, C. B. Harbitz, Sebastian Krastel

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsGeologySlumpLandslideSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On 18 November 1929, an M w 7.2 earthquake occurred south of Newfoundland, displacing >100 km 3 of sediment volume that evolved into a turbidity current. The resulting tsunami was recorded across the Atlantic and caused fatalities in Newfoundland. This tsunami is attributed to sediment mass failure because no seafloor displacement due to the earthquake has been observed. No major headscarp, single evacuation area nor large mass transport deposit has been observed and it is still unclear how the tsunami was generated. There have been few previous attempts to model the tsunami and none of these match the observations. Recently acquired seismic reflection data suggest that rotational slumping of a thick sediment mass may have occurred, causing seafloor displacements up to 100 m in height. We used this new information to construct a tsunamigenic slump source and also carried out simulations assuming a translational landslide. The slump source produced sufficiently large waves to explain the high tsunami run-ups observed in Newfoundland and the translational landslide was needed to explain the long waves observed in the far field. However, more analysis is needed to derive a coherent model that more closely combines geological and geophysical observations with landslide and tsunami modelling.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations65
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207