MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141009481 · doi:10.1139/t11-039

Characteristics of large landslides in sensitive clay in relation to susceptibility, hazard, and risk

2011· article· en· W2141009481 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter E. Quinn, D. Jean Hutchinson, Mark S. Diederichs, R. Kerry Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideGeologyHazardNatural hazardDebrisRockfallGeotechnical engineeringImpact craterSeismologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clay plains of the Saint Lawrence Lowlands of eastern North America are subject to large landslides in sensitive clay. These landslides occur relatively infrequently, but can have very significant consequences. This type of risk (low frequency, high consequence) can be difficult to manage, as the return period is long enough that the most recent major event tends to be forgotten by the time the next major event occurs. This paper examines characteristics of large landslides in sensitive clay with the purpose of understanding the nature of the hazard, and this work is extended to develop a high level appreciation of risk to a network of linear infrastructure, using railways as an example. The analysis considers the characteristics of a number of large landslides documented in the literature, as well as statistical characteristics of a digital inventory of large landslides, including: surface area, debris travel distance, retrogression length, proximity to other landslides, crater shape, landslide mechanism, temporal frequency, and documented effects. A linear network with between 100 and 1000 river crossings in the sensitive clay deposits in eastern Canada is expected to suffer a major disruption once every 10 to 100 years.

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)0.003
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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