Reactivation hazard mapping for ancient landslides in West Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Several examples in western Europe have shown that, at least for deep-seated rotational slides, reactivation of formerly slipped masses is a more frequent phenomenon than the occurrence of new landslides, therefore representing a higher hazard. We selected a study area comprised of 13 landslides located in the Flemish Ardennes (West Belgium) and predicted the hazard related to scarp retreat. The scarp reactivations were identified from the comparison of DTMs produced for 1952 and 1996. Robust results were obtained with the Gamma operator of a fuzzy set approach and a combination of geomorphic, topographic and land use data. We built first a prediction model from the relations linking the 1952–1996 retreat events to the conditioning parameters of 1952. The prediction rate of the resulting susceptibility map is estimated by a cross-validation procedure. We then applied the statistics of this model to the data of 1996 in order to produce a susceptibility map responding to the present-day conditions. Finally, we estimated the conditional probabilities of occurrence of future reactivations for the period 1996–2036.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".