MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119885646 · doi:10.1139/t07-030

Before the Frank Slide

2007· article· en· W2119885646 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
D. M. Crudën, C. Derek Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsGeologyAnticlineMoraineRockfallGeomorphologyPaleozoicAlluvial fanOutcropGlacierMining engineeringSedimentary rockPaleontologyLandslide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Frank Slide occurred on the east limb of the Turtle Mountain Anticline, which was thrust up along the folded and splayed Turtle Mountain Fault. Easterly dipping, Paleozoic limestones and dolomites then rested on sheared, weaker, Mesozoic clastic rocks and coal strata. Cordilleran glaciers steepened the eastern flank of Turtle Mountain but left buttressing kame moraines. These were eroded by the Crowsnest River, which was pushed against Turtle Mountain between its North and South Peaks by the growth of the alluvial fan of Gold Creek. Blairmore Group mudstones and shales beneath the moraines were susceptible to toppling. Photographs of the east slope of Turtle Mountain before the Frank Slide show disturbed vegetation, uneven topography, steep slopes, and rock fall deposits, all consistent with active slope movements. The Frank Slide may have been triggered by the freezing of melting snow in rock joints and by coal mining. Our calculations show that, while individual stopes may have been unstable, the mine pillars and the coal mine itself were stable. Numerical simulations of the coal mining in the Frank Mine suggest mining reduced the strength of the east slope of Turtle Mountain by less than 10% before the Frank Slide.Key words: Rocky Mountains, Frank Slide, coal mining, river erosion, toppling.

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)0.001
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 score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207