Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shallow-flow integrated numerical models of landslide and avalanche motion have recently experienced rapid development. An important aspect of model development is verification, to show that models are correct and reasonably robust in their application of basic physical principles. Most existing models have been verified against controlled laboratory experiments using dry granular material. In this article, it is shown that spreading flows such as the “dam-break” problem in frictional material pose problems for shallow-flow analysis. A series of dam-break laboratory experiments have been carried out with several different slope angles and bed materials. A model was then applied using four alternative assumptions regarding the distribution of earth pressure in the sliding mass. It was shown that assumptions commonly used in previous work produce very substantial errors (up to 200%) when applied to the prediction of dam-break runout in material with both internal and basal friction. A new model is proposed based on a simple modification of the well-known SH assumptions. This new model provides excellent agreement with experimental results, both for shallow avalanches and spreading flows. It represents a means to greatly expand the applicability of shallow-flow models to real landslide problems involving spreading flow, such as flow slides.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".