MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2140319547 · doi:10.1139/t10-091

Movement behaviour of the Little Chief Slide

2011· article· en· W2140319547 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
M. Mansour, C. Derek Martin, Norbert R. Morgenstern

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural Resources
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCreepGeologyGeotechnical engineeringInclinometerMovement (music)Pore water pressureInterflowMining engineeringMaterials scienceGroundwaterComposite materialGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Little Chief Slide has been extremely slow moving at a rate of 4–14 mm/year since the late 1960s. The 800 million m3slide lies about 3 km upstream of Mica Dam in British Columbia. The extremely slow rate was not affected by the Mica Dam reservoir filling in the 1970s. Although the Little Chief Slide is classified as a rock slide, the extremely slow movements take place on seams of soft materials composed mainly of micaceous clay gouge. The characteristics of the movement trends with time were investigated at six zones using in-place inclinometers (IPIs). The trends of the movement with the reservoir level fluctuations and pore pressure changes were investigated to quantify the contribution of steady-state creep to the total in situ movements. The creep behaviour of the clay gouge materials forming the movement zones was also investigated in the laboratory. The laboratory and field creep behaviours were then compared. The movement could be partitioned into steady-state creep and seasonally induced creep movements. This partitioning identified the locations where the seasonal movements are the highest, and, hence, where drainage measures could have the biggest impact.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→