Field and monitoring data of debris-flow events in the Swiss Alps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debris flow is a common process in the Swiss Alps and in other mountainous parts of the world. The understanding of debris-flow behaviour is essential to assess the hazards they present. An important approach towards improving the knowledge of debris-flow processes is the gathering of real-time data by debris-flow observation stations. Observation stations were established in three Swiss debris flow prone watersheds and equipped with video cameras, ultrasonic devices, a radar device, geophones, and rain gauges. In 2000, four significant debris flows were observed. The data provided useful information on the mechanics of debris flows and on the efficiency of the measuring devices. The observed debris flows are characterized by volumes between 5 000 and 35 000 m 3 , front velocities ranging from 2 to 5 m/s, and peak discharges between 20 and 125 m 3 /s. The analysis of the monitoring data revealed that ultrasonic and radar devices are very helpful tools, whereas the quality of the geophone signal strongly depends on the substrate on which the instrument is installed (i.e., bedrock versus unconsolidated material). Video images are useful to verify the data obtained by the other devices. A dynamic analysis of one debris flow was carried out and the simulated results are in fair agreement with the observed data.Key words: debris flow, Swiss Alps, monitoring, dynamic analysis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it