A review of the classification of landslides of the flow type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a result of the widespread use of the landslide classifications of Varnes (1978), and Hutchinson (1988), certain terms describing common types of flow-like mass movements have become entrenched in the language of engineering geology. Example terms include debris flow, debris avalanche and mudslide. Here, more precise definitions of the terms are proposed, which would allow the terms to be retained with their original meanings while making their application less ambiguous. A new division of landslide materials is proposed, based on genetic and morphological aspects rather than arbitrary grain-size limits. The basic material groups include sorted materials: gravel, sand, silt, and clay, unsorted materials: debris, earth and mud, peat and rock. Definitions are proposed for relatively slow non-liquefied sand or gravel flows, extremely rapid sand, silt or debris flow slides accompanied by liquefaction, clay flow slides involving extra-sensitive clays, peat flows, slow to rapid earth flows in nonsensitive plastic clays, debris flows which occur in steep established channels or gullies, mud flows considered as cohesive debris flows, debris floods involving massive sediment transport at limited discharges, debris avalanches which occur on open hill slopes and rock avalanches formed by large scale failures of bedrock.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".