MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038627886 · doi:10.1139/t00-013

An unusually large debris flow at Hummingbird Creek, Mara Lake, British Columbia

2000· article· en· W2038627886 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Matthias Jakob, Dale O. Anderson, Tom C. Fuller, Oldrich Hungr, Dana C. Ayotte

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Environment
KeywordsDebrisDebris flowHydrology (agriculture)GeologyAlluvial fanLandslideChannel (broadcasting)GeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringOceanographyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 11 July 1997 a very large debris flow occurred at Hummingbird Creek, Mara Lake, British Columbia. Long-term antecedent precipitation was record breaking, whereas short-term precipitation at Salmon Arm did not exceed the 2 year return period for intensity. A 25 000 m 3 debris avalanche was initiated downstream of a forest road culvert, which drained a small catchment that had been artificially increased by a factor of three. The debris avalanche entered the channel of Hummingbird Creek and triggered a debris flow. Velocities were back-calculated using the forced vortex equation and multiplied by the cross-sectional area to obtain peak discharge estimates that ranged from 600 to 1000 m 3 /s. Approximately 92 000 m 3 of sediment was deposited during this event, which makes it the largest nonvolcanic debris flow recorded in British Columbia to date. A three-dimensional runout model was used to simulate this event. Results are in fair agreement with the observed behaviour. This study emphasizes the need to carefully manage forest resources with high downstream risks and the need for hazard assessments prior to development on alluvial fans.Key words: debris avalanche, debris flow, DAN model, hydroclimatic, peak discharge, 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2010.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations58
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207