Coseismic Uplift of the 1999 <i>M</i><sub>w</sub>7.6 Chi‐Chi Earthquake and Implication to Topographic Change in Frontal Mountain Belts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large dip‐slip earthquakes have a major contribution to mountain building while earthquake‐induced landslides lower mountains simultaneously. The amount of the coseismic uplift and landslides may dominate long‐term mountain evolution. However, how earthquakes contribute to mountain evolution through coseismic uplift and landslides is less constrained in real cases. We present the regional coseismic uplift of the 1999 Mw7.6 Chi‐Chi earthquake by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images and GPS. The coseismic uplift pattern is consistent with field observations showing increasing movement to the north with ~8 m of uplift toward the northern end. We estimated uplifted rock volume of 2.60 ± 1.09 km3, which is five times greater than the coseismic landslide volume. Intense erosion of the Taiwan orogen may erode elevated rocks rapidly, but the uplift and landslide distributions do not match and correlate more inversely, suggesting the frontal orogenic topography should be increased rather than annulled over earthquake cycles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".