MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968812675 · doi:10.1139/t01-030

An empirical-statistical model for debris flow travel distance

2001· article· en· W1968812675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. J. Fannin, Mike Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebris flowLandslideEntrainment (biomusicology)GeologyFlow (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringMagnitude (astronomy)Deposition (geology)MechanicsDebrisGeometryMathematicsGeomorphologyStructural basinPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An empirical model is presented for analysis of debris flows based on field observations of landslides from clear-cuts in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Given an initial failure volume, changes in event magnitude arising from entrainment and deposition along the path of movement are used to establish the point at which the cumulative flow volume diminishes to zero, and therefore the total travel distance. Hillslope morphology is used to assign three types of flow behaviour: unconfined, confined, and transition flow. Flow behaviour and slope angle determine the occurrence of entrainment or deposition in the model, for every reach of the event path. Volume change in a reach is calculated from regression analysis of the Queen Charlotte Islands field observations. Predictor variables are reach length, width (of entrainment and (or) deposition), and slope angle, together with a bend-angle function and the incoming flow volume.Key words: slope stability, debris flow, travel distance, runout, risk, clear-cut.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations162
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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