Using stability tests and regional avalanche danger to estimate the local avalanche danger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Because public avalanche forecast regions in Canada are large, ranging from 100 to >30 000 km2, there are often areas within each region where the current local avalanche danger differs from the forecast regional danger. Identifying areas where the local danger is higher or lower than the regional rating is useful for recreational backcountry travellers; for those with limited experience, however, this is not always practical. During four winters in the Columbia, Coast and Rocky Mountains of western Canada, field teams performed stability tests and undertook local avalanche danger assessments for comparison against the regional danger ratings. Significant correlations between stability test variables and the local avalanche danger, and between stability test variables and the difference between local and regional danger, indicate potential for improved evaluation of the local danger if stability test results are considered with the regional bulletin rating. Although our analysis shows that a single stability test result cannot reliably be used to estimate the local avalanche danger, it does identify circumstances under which stability tests can help backcountry recreationists identify an area of locally higher avalanche danger.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".