MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2027043925 · doi:10.1139/t01-001

Landslides in weakly cemented glaciolacustrine sediments, Morkill River valley, British Columbia

2001· article· en· W2027043925 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Corey Froese, D. M. Crudën

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsGeologyFrost weatheringCarbonateGeotechnical engineeringCalciteOedometer testSofteningCementation (geology)CementGeomorphologySoil waterMineralogySoil scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slopes in weakly cemented glaciolacustrine sediments in the Morkill River valley in the Canadian Rocky Mountains stand at up to 70°. Based on field and laboratory observations it appears that a contributing factor to instability is the softening of the soils by frost action and the leaching of calcite cement. Field density profiles demonstrated increased density and carbonate content with an increase in depth. Laboratory tests of carbonate content indicated a positive correlation between calcium carbonate and density in the glaciolacustrine sediments. The relationship was strongest in sands, in which leaching and dissolution were important components of softening. In clays, frost action was the dominant component of softening. Freeze-thaw tests showed a 50% decrease in strength after one cycle of freeze and thaw in the silts and clays.Key words: landslide, cemented, glaciolacustrine sediments, British Columbia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→