MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099667995 · doi:10.1029/2010jf001866

The critical size of macroscopic imperfections in dry snow slab avalanche initiation

2011· article· en· W2099667995 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. McClung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlabSnowGeologyMaterials scienceGeometryGeomorphologyGeophysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[1] Dry snow slab avalanches initiate after mode II fracture propagation within a thin, weak layer under a planar slab. Dry alpine snow in which avalanches form is a porous material, typically with volume fraction filled by solids of between 10% and 50%. If snow slab avalanches were caused by small scale flaws, there would be continuous avalanches and alpine snow would not survive on steep slopes. Instead, snow slab avalanches initiate from macroscopic imperfections or weak zones within the weak layer. These are called “sweet spots” by practitioners and deficit zones in the pioneering work by Conway and Abrahamson in the 1980s. In this paper, the results of 750 in situ shear fracture tests from 68 slab–weak layer combinations are summarized in relation to the critical sweet spot length and weak layer crystal form. The results show that the critical sweet spot lengths follow a gamma probability density function with a range from 0.14 to 1.3 m and most probable value 0.5 m. The results also imply that critical sweet spot length depends on weak layer grain type with significantly larger values for persistent forms (surface hoar and facets) than for nonpersistent forms (decomposing and fragmented grains).

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→