Contrasting failure behaviour of two large landslides in clay and silt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two large landslides in overconsolidated glaciolacustrine clay and silt, located in river valleys in British Columbia, were found to be quite similar in their main aspects. However, their failure behaviour was very different. One continues to exhibit intermittent, mainly ductile deformations with limited mobility which are typical of compound landslides in stiff clay. The other suddenly developed into an extremely rapid flow slide of 6.4 Mm3, damming a large river in the course of a few minutes and projecting a wave onto the opposite bank. The flow slide followed a period of strong infiltration. A comparison of the two cases explains the difference in their failure behaviour. Three possible mechanisms for brittle flow slide formation are proposed, the first based on the undrained brittleness of soil at the rupture surface, the second on the high internal strength of the sliding body, and the third on macroscopic brittleness developed by pre-failure ductile deformation and softening. Both latter mechanisms are facilitated by the presence of nonplastic units in the sliding mass.Key words: overconsolidated clay, silt, landslide, flow slide, brittleness, glaciolacustrine deposits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".