A slab-on-slab model for the Flims rockslide (Swiss Alps)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Flims rockslide is the largest landslide in the Alps, with an estimated volume of 12 km3. It resulted from a prehistoric high-speed movement of a large limestone mass. Several main factors influenced the mobility of the Flims rockslide: (i) the steep slopes of the Rhine River valley that blocked the spreading of the rock debris out of the limits of Rabiusa and Carreratobel tributary valleys; (ii) the resisting forces taking place at the base of the rockslide by friction and substratum obstacles; and (iii) the rock mass evolving to a granular state, as observed in the deposits, in which coherence of the original rock massif has been preserved. We expect that most of the energy was consumed by impacting on the opposite slope, forcing the rock mass to stop. Lateral parts and some portions of debris, which entered valleys of the right tributaries of the Rhine River, created tongues by rock avalanche motion, indicating transport velocity. These rock masses eroded the valley fill to create a large mixed mass at the toe of the rockslide deposits. Thus, the Flims rock slope movement can be classified as a rockslide to its middle section and as rock avalanches at its lateral margins. A slab-on-slab model is proposed to characterize transformation of the rock mass during transport, with different stages of motion. Beginning as a rockslide, a delaminating process took place to produce a multislab shearing motion. Shearing and fracturing create dilatancy of the sliding rock debris, with spreading constrained by topographic effects. Dynamic disintegration processes explain the production of fine particles and are at the origin of the granular state of the deposits. Lateral sections of the debris mass continued to flow in the absence of topographic constraints.Key words: rockslide, rock avalanche, Flims, disintegration, topographic control.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".