MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981420729 · doi:10.4095/293680

Sediment failures in northern Flemish Pass

2014· report· en· W2981420729 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ginger D. Cameron, David J. W. Piper, K MacKillop

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlemishSedimentGeologyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyArchaeologyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flemish Pass is a north-south trending, mid-slope basin located between Grand Bank and Flemish Cap on the eastern Canadian continental margin. It is an area of active hydrocarbon exploration, with recent significant discoveries at three wells in northern Flemish Pass. A sediment slide complex on the northwest flank of Flemish Cap was mapped by multibeam bathymetry in 2009 and further investigated in 2011 using high resolution seismic reflection systems and piston coring, in order to assess the origins of the slide complex and its geohazard implications for hydrocarbon development in the Mizzen field. This multiple failure complex extends about 65 km along the northeast flank of Flemish Pass and about 20 km downslope with three large arcuate slide scars found at its centre. These arcuate failures are up to 10 km wide and 9 km long downslope, with scarps over 70 m high. Failed sediments have run out as far as 20 km onto the floor of Flemish Pass, forming mass transport deposits (MTDs) typically 50 m thick. Piston cores from the slide complex have sampled the upper part of the MTDs and the overlying drape of undisturbed sediment. The stratigraphy of the undisturbed sediment is correlated with previously reported reference stratigraphic cores elsewhere in northern Flemish Pass and southern Orphan Basin, with the correlation confirmed by new radiocarbon dating. Geotechnical measurements including Atterberg limits, consolidation testing and triaxial shear have been made on the cores. Blocks in the MTDs imply previous burial and consolidation to at least 48 m. Factor of Safety analysis indicates that the sediments are statically stable with the critical slope angle ranging from 3.7 to 13.2°. There is a potential for liquefaction given the high silt content and relatively high water content compared to the liquid limit and lean nature of the sediments. The general style of failure appears to be retrogressive rotational slumping leading to break-up of sediment into a complex slide. The oldest failure involved the upper 30 m of sediment and is dated at 27 ka. Two subsequent failures are identified on the basis of multibeam morphology, but both appear to be of the same age to within the resolution of core stratigraphy at ~20.5 ka and they may be parts of a single failure event. In two cores, a thin blocky MTD involving only very shallow sediment is recognised and dated at 13 ka. A few tens of kilometres to the west, another major sediment failure dated at ~7 ka has been previously reported in southern Orphan Basin. In all these areas, migration of fluids from deep in Orphan Basin along the Cumberland Belt Fault Zone has probably preconditioned the region for failure. The state of excess pore pressure in the region is not known and it is unclear how much pore pressure may have been drained by the observed failures. The widespread occurrence of failures of the same age suggests earthquake triggering of failure by rare passive-margin earthquakes. Geological data reported here from Flemish Pass and previously reported data from Orphan Basin suggest a recurrence interval of approximately 10 ka for large earthquakes capable of triggering landslides in northern Flemish Pass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207