VALIDATION OF THE PROPAGATION SAW TEST NEAR WHUMPFS AND AVALANCHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The Propagation Saw Test (PST) is a recently developed field test method for evaluating the fracture propagation propensity of slab and weak layer combinations. The PST is intended to replicate the fracture propagation behaviour found on nearby slopes. By following a simple interpretation guideline, PST results can indicate the propensity of a given snowpack to propagate weak layer fractures to an extent that would lead to avalanche release. We review a recent PST validation study in which fracture propagation was observed (or not) on nearby slopes for cases of confirmed fracture initiation. In addition, we present new PST results from 17 whumpf and avalanche sites in the Columbia Mountains of British Columbia, Canada. At these sites, the PST correctly predicted the high propagation propensity 71 % of the time. However, as in the previous validation study, a relatively high proportion of tests (29%) incorrectly predicted low propagation propensity adjacent to whumpfs and avalanches. We review and discuss conditions associated with the false predictions, and we present suggestions for refining the test method and interpretation guidelines to reduce the occurrence of misleading results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".