MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412182178 · doi:10.1080/00288306.2025.2519711

Paleoseismology of the Long Valley Fault, Central Otago, New Zealand

2025· article· en· W4412182178 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Stirling, Jonathan Griffin, Matthew S. Tarling, Toby W. Stirling, J. Thomsen

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleoseismologyFault (geology)SeismologyGeochemistryGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We document the paleoseismology of the Long Valley Fault, Central Otago, New Zealand. A single trench excavated across the 21 km long, northeast‐striking reverse fault reveals evidence for three ground‐rupturing earthquakes. Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates (including OxCal analysis) of displaced sedimentary units are used to constrain the timings of these events. The antepenultimate event is constrained at 74.4 ka (81.4–67.6 ka, 95% confidence interval), the penultimate event at 37.4 (55.2–19.1) ka, and the most recent event at 10.5 (14.3–6.7) ka. These events show a total of 5 ± 0.2 m of dip slip in the trench, with a range of 1–2 m displacement per event. The estimated magnitude and mean recurrence interval for the Long Valley Fault are Mw 6.9 ‐ 7.0 and 32.0 ± 12.3 kyrs, respectively. The study contributes to the growing Otago paleoseismic database, which will eventually be used to understand regional space–time deformation behaviours in transpressional tectonic environments.

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)0.000
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 score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Geology and GeophysicsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207