Providing multidisciplinary scientific advice for coastal planning in Kitimat Arm, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 6.3 m tsunami swept through Kitimat Arm, British Columbia in 1974. An even larger wave struck and damaged the Northlands Navigation dock at Kitimat and the Haisla First Nation docks at Kitamaat Village the following year. Further down the fjord, two large coastal block failures were observed on the fjord walls across from the Gitga'at village of Hartley Bay. Several large infrastructure projects have recently been proposed for the Kitimat Arm coastal areas. The Geological Survey of Canada has therefore embarked on a five-year project to understand the magnitude and frequency of submarine mass movements in this fjord system to provide information regarding the risks from these events and to propose mitigation measures that may reduce these risks. We provide here an overview and the main results to date of an ongoing multidisciplinary study, which includes palaeotsunami studies, geomorphological and sub-seabed mapping, subaerial landslide hazard assessment, tsunami modelling, in situ and laboratory geotechnical testing, and the real-time tracking of seismic activity and seafloor movement. Some of these activities are reported in greater detail elsewhere in this book. The results of this research are summarized as a list of conclusions and recommendations to the Government of Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".