A study on the use of planarity for quick identification of potential landslide hazard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this study we focused on identifying a geomorphological feature that controls the location of landslides. The representation of the feature is based on a high-resolution digital elevation model derived from the airborne laser altimetry (LiDAR) and evaluated by the statistical analysis of axial orientation data. The main principle of this analysis is generating eigenvalues from axial orientation data and comparing them. The planarity, a ratio of eigenvalues, would tell the degree of irregularity on the ground surface based on their ratios. Results are compared to the recent landslide case in Korea in order to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed methodology in identifying the potential landslide hazard. The preliminary landslide hazard assessment based on the planarity analysis discriminates features between stable and unstable domain in the study area well, especially in the landslide initiation zones. Results also show it is beneficial to build the landslide hazard inventory mapping, especially where no information on historical records of landslides exists. By combining other physical procedures such as geotechnical monitoring, the landslide hazard assessment using geomorphological features promises a better understanding of landslides and their mechanisms and provides an enhanced methodology to evaluate their hazards and appropriate actions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".