MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165248235 · doi:10.1139/t01-089

Submarine landslides: advances and challenges

2002· article· en· W2165248235 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Jacques Locat, Homa J. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubmarineSubmarine landslideMass movementSubmarine pipelineLandslideGeologyDebrisHazardNatural hazardGeotechnical engineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the recent development of well-integrated surveying techniques of the sea floor, significant improvements were achieved in mapping and describing the morphology and architecture of submarine mass movements. Except for the occurrence of turbidity currents, the aquatic environment (marine and fresh water) experiences the same type of mass failure as that found on land. Submarine mass movements, however, can have run-out distances in excess of 100 km, so their impact on any offshore activity needs to be integrated over a wide area. This great mobility of submarine mass movements is still not very well understood, particularly for cases like the far-reaching debris flows mapped on the Mississippi Fan and the large submarine rock avalanches found around many volcanic islands. A major challenge ahead is the integration of mass movement mechanics in an appropriate evaluation of the hazard so that proper risk assessment methodologies can be developed and implemented for various human activities offshore, including the development of natural resources and the establishment of reliable communication corridors.Key words: submarine slides, hazards, risk assessment, morphology, mobility, tsunami.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations732
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207