MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412843976 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05617-1

Tsunami Runup Survey Data From The Taan Fjord Landslide Event

2025· article· en· W4412843976 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Lynett, Robert Weiss, Bretwood Higman, Andrew Mattox, Adam Keen, Vassilios Skanavis, Hui Tang, Aykut Ayça, Nikos Kalligeris

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSelkirk College
FundersDivision of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationNational Park ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFjordGeologyLandslideEvent (particle physics)OceanographyGeographySeismologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 17 October 2015, a mountainside collapse at the terminus of Tyndall Glacier in southeast Alaska generated a landslide-triggered mega-tsunami. The landslide sent approximately 7.6 × 10 7 m 3 of rock and glacial sediment into Taan Fjord, abruptly displacing the water. The ensuing tsunami reached a peak runup of ~193 m on a steep slope directly across from the landslide, ranking among the highest tsunami runups ever documented. The wave inundated over 20 km² of terrain around Taan Fjord and Icy Bay, stripping forests and depositing sediment up to hundreds of meters inland. In 2016, a comprehensive field campaign surveyed the event, recording precise tsunami runup elevations, flow depths, and inundation distances at dozens of sites throughout the fjord and adjacent coastlines. Here we present the resulting datasets: a georeferenced catalogue of tsunami runup measurements, high-resolution topography and bathymetry data, and an extensive collection of field photographs. These data provide a quantitative record of a mega-tsunami’s onshore effects, intended as a benchmark dataset for landslide-tsunami modeling and hazard assessment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0070.009
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueScientific DataSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207