MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Sedimentological Record of Upper Holocene Tsunami Event in Fengbin, Taiwan

2021· article· en· W3087676716 on OpenAlexaff
FX Anjar Tri Laksono, Louis Loung Yie Tsai, Jessica E. Pilarczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueGeopersia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySedimentary rockFluvialTrenchGranulometrySedimentFaciesTerrace (agriculture)SedimentologyHoloceneTectonicsPaleontologyGeomorphologyArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tsunami had struck the Ami tribe’s settlement on the eastern coast of Taiwan in 1771. The trigger of this tsunami is still debatable. Hence, the analysis of tsunami deposits in Fengbin is needed to understand the chronology of the tsunami. There are three types of sediment samples taken from the study area, namely modern beach sand, modern fluvial sand, and sediment materials from the marine terrace. Sample analysis was carried out using the point counting, granulometry, biozonation, and paleo-bathymetry methods to determine the facies, provenance, and sediment transport mechanisms. The results of field observation indicate the presence of marine shells on the sediment deposit of marine terraces at elevations between 10.5-12.5 m. The thickness of this deposit is between 15-20 cm in the fining upward succession and there is a rip-up clast sedimentary structure. The characteristic of this deposit is similar to tsunami deposits found on the Ishigaki and Miyako Islands, Japan. The conclusion of this study is that there is a tsunami deposit in Fengbin associated with the tsunami deposits found in Miyako and Ishigaki Islands, Japan. The trigger of the tsunami in Fengbin probably attributed to tectonic activity in the Ryukyu Trench.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeopersiaSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207