Geological hazards and disasters in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A geological disaster occurs when natural geological processes impact on our activities, either through loss of life or injury or through economic loss. A geological hazard is a potential disaster. Geological hazard in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was studied by archival research using a variety of sources to document the historical record of disaster. This record, although undoubtedly incomplete and selective, demonstrates that the province was affected by numerous geological disasters that inflicted a major economic and social cost. At least 80 people have been killed in Newfoundland and Labrador since 1863 in such incidents, including debris flows, rockfalls, avalanches, and tsunamis. Many Newfoundland communities have developed at the base of steep slopes and are therefore prone to landslides and avalanches or are built adjacent to the coast and are susceptible to storm damage. The economic cost is difficult to estimate, but remedial measures for individual events range from Can$ 20 000 for the construction of 50 m of gabions and retaining walls to Can$ 3 000 000 for community-level coastal flood-protection measures. Many of the documented geological disasters were unavoidable and were the inevitable result of geography. However, some were predictable and therefore preventable, either because a similar event had previously occurred in the same area or because geological factors, such as rapid coastal erosion or rising relative sea levels, were not considered during the planning process. The identification of serious avalanche and rockfall hazards in the Battery, St. John's, has led to installation of protective measures. Archival research methods provide a cheap, effective, and useful means of defining regional geological hazard. Key words: avalanche, landslide, rockfall, hazard, tsunami.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".