Testing Megathrust Rupture Models Using Tsunami Deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 26 January 1700 CE Cascadia subduction zone earthquake ruptured much of the plate boundary and generated a tsunami that deposited sand in coastal marshes from northern California to Vancouver Island. Although the depositional record of tsunami inundation is extensive in some of these marshes, few sites have been investigated in enough detail to map the inland extent of sand deposition and depict variability in tsunami deposit thickness and grain size. We collected 129 cores in marshes of the Salmon River estuary in Oregon and reanalyzed 114 core logs from a 1987–88 study that mapped the inland extent of circa 1700 CE sandy tsunami deposits. The ca. 1700 CE tsunami deposit in the Salmon River estuary is easily recognized in cores ≤1 m deep in which a buried marsh peat is overlain by a well sorted sand bed with a sharp lower contact that thins and fines inland. We use tsunami deposit data and models of sandy tsunami sediment transport (using Delft3D‐FLOW) to test 15 rupture models that could represent a ca. 1700 CE earthquake. At least 12–16 m of slip offshore of the Salmon River, which results in 0.8–1.0 m of coastal coseismic subsidence, is required to match the ca. 1700 CE sand deposit's inland extent, which is consistent with models of heterogeneous megathrust slip in ca. 1700 CE. Our methods of detailed tsunami deposit mapping, combined with sediment transport modeling, can be used to test models of megathrust ruptures and their tsunamis to potentially improve earthquake and tsunami hazard 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".