MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterization and management of rockslide hazard at Turtle Mountain, Alberta, Canada

2012· book-chapter· en· W133908783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corey Froese, Marie Charrière, Florian Humair, Michel Jaboyedoff, Andrea Pedrazzini

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideRockslideRockfallHazardGeologyTurtle (robot)GeographyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyFisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1903, more than 30 million m 3 of rock fell from the east slopes of Turtle Mountain in Alberta, Canada, causing a rock avalanche that killed about 70 people in the town of Frank. The Alberta Government, in response to continuing instabilities at the crest of the mountain, established a sophisticated field laboratory where state-of-the-art monitoring techniques have been installed and tested as part of an early-warning system. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the causes, trigger, and extreme mobility of the landslide. We then present new data relevant to the characterization and detection of the present-day instabilities on Turtle Mountain. Fourteen potential instabilities have been identified through field mapping and remote sensing. Lastly, we provide a detailed review of the different in-situ and remote monitoring systems that have been installed on the mountain. The implications of the new data for the future stability of Turtle Mountain and related landslide runout, and for monitoring strategies and risk management, are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.157
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→