MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041313991 · doi:10.1139/t09-080

Geotechnical characteristics of large rapid rock slides

2010· article· en· W2041313991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Glastonbury, Robin Fell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRocky Mountain Research Station
KeywordsLandslideGeologyGeotechnical engineeringBrittlenessRock mass classificationDeformation (meteorology)GroundwaterRockfallMining engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the analysis of 51 case studies of large rapid rock slides, for a landslide to travel rapidly after failure there has to be a significant loss of strength on the basal surface of rupture, lateral margins, and (or) internally within the slide mass, or the factor of safety has to be maintained below 1.0 after failure by high groundwater pressures. Internally sheared compound slides and translational slides may all travel rapidly depending on their detailed geotechnical and geometric characteristics. The characteristics of these landslides that suggest an increased likelihood of rapid failure have been identified. All the rapid rock slides examined in this study involved relatively high-strength rock masses. Most cases were considered to be first-time landslides, largely involving brittleness on the basal rupture surface. However, there were some cases considered to be reactivated or active landslides on pre-sheared rupture surfaces. For this latter group, the loss of strength leading to rapid landsliding was associated with brittle internal deformation or lateral margins.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
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

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207