MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2156735831 · doi:10.1139/t2012-079

Estimating extreme avalanche runout for the Columbia Mountains and Fernie area Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, Canada

2012· article· en· W2156735831 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Katherine S. Johnston, Bruce Jamieson, Alan Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Avalanche AssociationUniversity of CalgaryBGC Engineering (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyRange (aeronautics)Mountain range (options)SnowPhysical geographyGeomorphologySeismologyGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme snow avalanche runout is typically estimated using a combination of historical and vegetation records as well as statistical and dynamic models. The two classes of statistical models (α–β and runout ratio) are based on estimating runout distance past the β-point, which is typically defined as the point where the avalanche slope incline first decreases to 10°. The parameters for these models vary from mountain range to mountain range. In Canada, α–β and runout ratio parameters have been published for the combined Rocky and Purcell Mountains and for the British Columbia Coast Mountains. Despite active development, no suitable tall avalanche path model parameters have been published for the Columbia Mountains or for the Lizard Range area around Fernie, B.C. Using a dataset of 65 avalanche paths, statistical model parameters have been derived for these regions.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→