MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033731934 · doi:10.1002/geot.200800010

Numerical Modelling of the Dynamics of Debris Flows and Rock Avalanches

2008· article· en· W2033731934 on OpenAlexaff
Oldrich Hungr

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomechanics and Tunnelling · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideDebris flowDebrisGeologyHazardGeotechnical engineeringRockfallHazard analysisEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prediction of velocity and travel distance of potential rapid landslides such as debris flows, debris avalanches, flow slides and rock avalanches is useful for quantitative hazard and risk assessment. This article describes some methods that are becoming available for practical use. The proposed approach uses calibration of relatively simple numerical landslide dynamics models against observed behaviour of real landslide events. Two example cases of runout back‐analyses, selected from a recent International Benchmarking Exercise conducted in Hong Kong, are presented.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomechanics and TunnellingSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207