Implications of physics‐based M9 ground motions on liquefaction‐induced damage in the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Looking forward and backward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".