Flow behaviour and runout modelling of a complex debris flow in a clay‐shale basin
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identification of debris‐flow hazard areas necessitates the knowledge of the flow thickness and the runout distance. Both have been investigated using a numerical runout model. On the Faucon stream (South French Alps), representative of clay‐shale basins, results of various rheological tests and numerical experiments are presented and discussed. The calibration of the model was undertaken using the results of both geomorphological surveys and sedimentological analyses. Rheological tests using either a parallel‐plate rheometer, a coaxial rheometer, slump tests, and an inclined plane were carried out on several samples. Results have shown that the flow behaviour could be described by an Herschel‐Bulkley constitutive equation. The rheological responses of several natural suspensions collected from surficial deposits (sandstones, moraines, weathered black marls) were also investigated. In order to model the runout of the flow, the model BING was used. The model describes well the influence of each type of sediment on the behaviour (runout distance, deposit thickness) of the flow, although the velocities were significantly overestimated. Different risk scenarios are tested and discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it