MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3159054623 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-3354

Historical evidence warns about disastrous tele-tsunami risk on the coast of East Africa.

2021· article· en· W3159054623 on OpenAlexaff
Vittorio Maselli, Davide Oppo, Andrew Moore, Aditya Riadi Gusman, Cassy Mtelela, David Iacopini, Elisante Elisaimon Mshiu, Elinaza Mjema, Marco Taviani, Joseph D. Ortiz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwahiliFlooding (psychology)Indian oceanTanzaniaSubductionTsunami waveOceanographySeismologyGeologyCoastal floodGeographyHazardSea level riseTectonicsClimate changeEnvironmental planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2004 tsunami killed more than 200,000 people in Asia, but fewer than 300 in all East Africa. As a result, the search for ancient precursors has focused primarily along the coastlines of the Northern and Eastern Indian Ocean. No efforts to study past events were made in East Africa, leading to an underestimation of the tsunami risk in the region. Here we document a 1,000-yr old event that devastated a coastal Swahili settlement in Tanzania. Our study suggests a tsunami wave as the most likely explanation, in agreement with coeval tsunami deposits elsewhere across the Indian Ocean. Numerical simulations of tsunami flooding suggest a megathrust earthquake from the Andaman-Sumatra subduction zone as a potential source, with a larger magnitude than the 2004 event. Our findings indicate that tele-tsunamis represent a serious threat to coastal societies along the Western Indian Ocean, with implications for future tsunami hazard and risk assessments.

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)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicearthquake and tectonic studies→French-language works237,207→