MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890967428 · doi:10.1029/2018jf004608

Submarine Deposition of a Subaerial Landslide in Taan Fiord, Alaska

2018· article· en· W2890967428 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J. Haeussler, S. P. S. Gulick, Naoma McCall, M. A. L. Walton, R. Reece, C. F. Larsen, Dan H. Shugar, Marten Geertsema, Jeremy G. Venditti, Keith A. Labay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth Surface · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityGovernment of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubaerialGeologyFjordLandslideBathymetrySubmarine landslideSubmarineGeomorphologySeismologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A large subaerial landslide entered Taan Fiord, Alaska, on 17 October 2015 producing a tsunami with runup to 193 m. We use LiDAR data to show the slide volume to be 76 + 3/−4 million cubic meters and that 51,000,000 m 3 entered Taan Fiord. In 2016, we mapped the fjord with multibeam bathymetry and high‐resolution seismic data. Landslide and postlandslide deposits extend 6 km downfjord, are up to 70 ± 11 m thick, and have a total volume of ~147,000,000 m 3 . Seismic data image a blocky landslide unit and two units deposited immediately after the landslide. The blocky landslide unit is ~65,000,000 m 3 . We infer it consists dominantly of subaerially derived material and secondarily of fjord floor sediment. The overlying units are likely megaturbidites presumably deposited within minutes to days after the landslide. We infer that these deposits dominantly consist of fjord floor material mobilized and suspended as the slide entered and traveled downfjord. The lower postlandslide unit is up to 35 ± 6 m thick, and the upper unit is up to 12 ± 3 m thick. These deposits are distinctive and will leave a lasting record of the event. This subaerial‐to‐submarine landslide deposit is distinct from other submarine landslide deposits studied in Alaskan fjords because it has a much greater thickness, larger and more angular blocks, distinctive postlandslide megaturbidites, and a higher‐amplitude acoustic signature of the blocky deposit. The tight constraints on the landslide source and deposit volumes, topography, bathymetry, and tsunami runup heights and flow directions should make this a benchmark site for landslide‐tsunami models.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Earth SurfaceSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207