Hazard analysis of an active slide in the Thompson River Valley, Ashcroft, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current practice in landslide hazard analysis does not commonly address the potential for different rates of movement after failure. The movement rates of an active landslide may vary significantly; therefore, the consequences analysis for such a landslide requires the calculation of the probability of different post-failure movement rates. Slide CN50.9 near Ashcroft, B.C., is used to demonstrate the hazard analysis of active landslides that incorporates the probability of post-failure movement rate. After defining the characteristics of the slide and the movement trigger, a probabilistic slope stability analysis for a 100 year period is conducted that considers the material and trigger uncertainties in the analysis. Then the uncertainties in the groundwater condition and amount of toe erosion are added to the probabilistic slope stability results. A new method is introduced for incorporating the probability of the different movement rates of each translational block within the slide body in the hazard analysis. A relatively high probability (0.1) of rapid reactivation for the toe reactivation block is estimated. The probability of very rapid retrogression of the current main scarp within the next 100 year period is calculated to be relatively low (0.003). A detailed risk analysis based on this hazard analysis will be helpful for decision makers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".