MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407753162 · doi:10.1177/87552930251316819

Implications of physics‐based M9 ground motions on liquefaction‐induced damage in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Looking forward and backward

2025· article· en· W4407753162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan A. Rasanen, Alex Grant, Andrew J. Makdisi, Brett W. Maurer, Erin A. Wirth

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubductionGeologySeismologyLiquefactionGround motionGeotechnical engineeringTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the likelihood of future M9 Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquakes, various estimates of the resulting, regional ground motions have been made, including a suite of 30 physics‐based simulations that reflect key modeling uncertainties. However, because the last CSZ interface rupture occurred in 1700 CE, the shaking expected in such an event is especially uncertain, as are the impacts to the built and living environments. Like other coseismic impacts, soil liquefaction poses a significant threat and must be considered by any scenario study used to inform planning and response, or to focus mitigation resources. Liquefaction is also notable for its potential to “ground truth” ground‐motion estimates, given that its presence or absence in the geologic record can provide constraint on the intensities of shaking in past events. It is thus an important phenomenon looking both forward and backward. Accordingly, using recent physics‐based simulations, this study (1) predicts liquefaction in M9 CSZ ruptures at 400 locations in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (BC) using an array of cone‐penetration‐test based models and (2) uses paleoliquefaction evidence at ten sites spanning from Southern Oregon to Vancouver, BC to constrain possible ground‐motion intensities experienced in the 1700 CE earthquake. The forward predictions indicate that liquefaction in M9 events could be pervasive in the region and affect numerous population hubs, with the potential for damage across hundreds of square kilometers. The backward analyses suggest that 1700 CE ground‐motion intensities may have been less than expected from M9 simulations in some northern portions of the CSZ (e.g. Seattle), given the paucity of 1700 CE liquefaction evidence in these areas. Ultimately, further discovery and analysis of CSZ paleoliquefaction, or lack thereof, will confirm or modify this possibility and the conclusions drawn herein.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207