MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406558695 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggaf014

Estimation of the landslide source for the 1929 Grand Banks event using a deep-sea landslide tsunami simulation

2025· article· en· W4406558695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tatsuya Nakagaki, Yuichiro Tanioka

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsLandslideGeologySeismologyEvent (particle physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The 1929 Grand Banks earthquake (Mw 7.1) generated a large landslide that broke submarine cables near the source area. A large tsunami was generated by the large landslide that killed 28 people on the southern coast of the Burin Peninsula, Canada. The tsunami was also observed at a tide gauge in Halifax, Canada. In this study, the initial landslide mass distribution was estimated by fitting the first pulse of the tsunami waveform observed at Halifax and the timings of the submarine cable break with those computed values. A deep-sea landslide tsunami computation method was developed by modifying a previously developed Tsunami Squares method with a different friction term and an effect of deep water. The results showed that the tsunami waveform and timing of the cable break were well explained by the tsunami computed from the initial landslide mass volume of about 450 $\mathrm{km^3}$ located along the continental slope near the source area. The method developed to compute deep-sea landslide tsunamis should be useful for studying other types of landslide tsunamis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207