MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950105255 · doi:10.1139/t2012-021

Observations from the large, rapid Yigong rock slide – debris avalanche, southeast Tibet

2012· article· en· W1950105255 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiang Xu, Yanjun Shang, Theo van Asch, Shitian Wang, Zhuoyuan Zhang, Xiujun Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebrisLandslideGeologyMudflowLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringEntrainment (biomusicology)Deposition (geology)SeismologyGeomorphologyOceanographySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Yigong rock slide – debris avalanche (YRA), which occurred on 9 April 2000, received worldwide attention as one of the largest nonseismic landslides in recent years, with a volume of 0.3 × 109 m3. Sixty-two days after this landslide event, a catastrophic flood happened because of landslide dam failure. One of the special features of this debris avalanche is liquefaction, which plays an important role in the entrainment and long run-out distance and high-speed movement of the debris avalanche. Numerous sand boils were found in the deposition zone, providing strong evidence for liquefaction. The YRA provides the first actual evidence for a theoretical model where the mechanisms of excess pore pressure and liquefaction induced by undrained loading, and entrainment and dissipation control the run out and deposition of the debris avalanche. The damage mode to trees and the presence of debris cones or molards with a rounded top is proven to be the result of strong air waves and eddies. These features all imply that the YRA is a solid–liquid–air mixed-debris avalanche.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations154
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207