MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395675610 · doi:10.1029/2024jc020926

The 2022 Tonga Tsunami on the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts of the Americas

2024· article· en· W4395675610 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander B. Rabinovich, Richard E. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyVolcanoOceanographySeismologyPacific oceanTsunami waveTide gaugeAtmospheric waveWind waveClimatologySea levelWave propagationGravity wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Hunga‐Tonga volcano eruption on 15 January 2022 generated tsunami waves that impacted both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the Americas. A unique feature of this event was the dual tsunami generation mechanism, which led to motions with long (several days) ringing and slow energy decay. The first ocean waves to reach the coast were “atmospheric tsunamis” generated by atmospheric Lamb waves that propagated with the speed of sound (∼314 m/s) and circled the globe in both directions several times before being fully attenuated. The second type of ocean waves were classical “oceanic tsunami” waves forced directly by the volcanic eruption and which propagated across the Pacific at roughly 2/3 the speed of the atmospheric waves. This study focuses on time series of the Hunga‐Tonga event recorded by tide gauges, microbarographs and Deep‐ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis on and off the Pacific coasts of North and Central America and in the Gulf of Mexico. Atmospheric tsunami waves only were recorded in the Gulf of Mexico, where the sea level response to the second, westward (shoreward) propagating atmospheric wave was stronger than to the first, eastward (seaward) propagating wave. Along the Pacific coast, the atmospheric tsunami waves were approximately 3–4 times smaller than the oceanic tsunami waves, which at several Mexican stations exceeded 2 m in height. The broad frequency range of 0.2–0.25 to 30 cph spanned by the oceanic tsunami in the Pacific indicates that the “effective” source area for the oceanic waves was more extensive than initially proposed.

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)0.001
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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research OceansSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207