A review of soil liquefaction in the Caribbean Greater and Lesser Antilles in reconsidering the ground motion effect of the M7.0 2010 Haiti earthquake in the Port‐au‐Prince Seaport and Léogâne Plain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 12 January 2010, the M7.0 Haiti earthquake caused infrastructure damage induced by extensive soil liquefaction and foundation failure in the Port‐au‐Prince International Seaport and Léogâne Plain. This study re‐examines the soil liquefaction effects of the main shock and aftershock events by exploring the existing studies on calcareous sands, reviewing the phenomenon of liquefaction in the Caribbean Islands, and associating them within the seismic history of the Greater and Lesser Antilles. Due to the geomorphology of the Islands, urban development has typically been concentrated along the coast, in locations vulnerable to soil liquefaction. This study demonstrates that the liquefaction that occurred at sites in the M7.0 Haiti event was triggered by the main shock even at low peak ground accelerations (PGAs), the first aftershock effects were significant, and soil liquefaction was not rare in the Antilles. It identifies the elements that characterize historical cases of soil liquefaction caused by earthquakes in the Caribbean Islands. In addition, it points out the characteristics and findings of paleoliquefaction and paleoseismicity investigations conducted in the Caribbean region. Investigations and studies on the calcareous sand liquefaction and paleoseismology are essential to improve the seismic hazard and risk assessment of the Caribbean Islands. The existence of a large number of studies making reference to this topic highlights its significance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".