MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026022940 · doi:10.1007/s11069-020-04050-4

Semi-empirical predictive equations for the initial amplitude of submarine landslide-generated waves: applications to 1994 Skagway and 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunamis

2020· article· en· W3026022940 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ramtin Sabeti, Mohammad Heidarzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesFisheries and Oceans CanadaRoyal Society
KeywordsLandslideAlgorithmAmplitudeGeologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysicsSeismologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate predictions of maximum initial wave amplitude are essential for coastal impact assessment of tsunami waves generated by submarine landslides. Here, we analyse the existing predictive equations for the maximum initial amplitude ( $$ \eta_{\text{max} } $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math> ) of submarine landslide-generated waves and study their performance in reproducing real-world landslide incidents. Existing equations include various landslide parameters such as specific gravity ( γ s ), initial submergence ( d ), slide length ( B ), width ( w ), thickness ( T ) and slope angle ( θ ). To determine how landslide parameters affect wave amplitude, we conduct a systematic sensitivity analysis. Results indicate that the slide volume ( V = B × w × T ) and d are among the most sensitive parameters. The data from the 1994 Skagway (observed $$ \eta_{\text{max} } $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math> : 1.0–2.0 m) and 1998 Papua New Guinea (PNG) (observed $$ \eta_{\text{max} } $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math> : 10–16 m) incidents provided valuable benchmarks for evaluating the performance of the existing equations. The predicted maximum initial amplitudes of 0.03–686.5 m and 3.7–6746.0 m were obtained for the 1994 and 1998 events, respectively, indicating a wide range for wave amplitudes. The predicted estimates for the smaller-sized event, i.e. the 1994 Skagway, appear to be more accurate than those made for the larger event, i.e. the 1998 PNG case. We develop a new predictive equation by fitting an equation to actual submarine landslide tsunamis: $$ \eta_{ \text{max} } = 50.67 \left( {\frac{V}{d}} \right)^{0.34} $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>50.67</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mfenced><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> , where V is the slide volume (km 3 ), d is initial submergence depth (m), and $$ \eta_{\text{max} } $$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:msub><mml:mi>η</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:math> is in metres. Our new equation gives wave amplitudes of 1.6 m and 7.8 m for the 1994 and 1998 landslide tsunamis, respectively, which are fairly consistent with real observations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural HazardsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207