Modeling the travel distances of debris flows and debris slides: quantifying hillside morphology
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
A travel distance model for debris flows and slides is presented based on information collected in southeast British Columbia, Canada. The model incorporates a variable that represents terrain morphology by a single number, quantification made using a one-to-one correspondence between the binary and decimal numeration systems. The terrain morphology coding has a site-specific character, providing a process-based representation of local conditions. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the dependence of event travel distance on terrain morphology, slope, stand height, terrain curvature and canopy closure (R2 = 0.975, p < 0.001). The model fulfills all the assumptions and requirements of regression analysis (i.e. normality, homoscedasticity, non – correlated errors, lack of colinearity or outliers). An independent data set was used to test the model. The model successfully predicted all but one of the test dataset events, and one of four outliers. The model consists of an equation that can be used in mass movement risk assessment associated, with different forest activities (e.g. harvesting, road building).Â
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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