Interpreting fracture character in stability tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For at least a decade or two, some avalanche safety programs have recorded and interpreted the char acter offractures in stability tests. It has been reported but not previously verified that stability tests resulting in clean or fast fractures or pops or drops ate more likely to correlate with avalanche occurrence than other types of fractures. Starting in 1997, a study in the Columbia Mountains ofwestern Canada classified the fractures in rutschblock and compression tests as Progressive Compression, Thin Planar, Sudden Collapse, or Non-Planar Breaks. Over 2800 stability tests were conducted at study slopes and study plots as well as over 450 stability tests near recent dry slab avalanches, resulting in a total of over 6000 fractures with classified characters. Some snowpack characteristics including weak layer grain type associated with the different fracture char acters were identified. Critical weak layers or interfaces for dry slab avalanches were more often associated with Thin Planar fractures than with Progressive Compressions or Breaks in rutschblock and compression tests. Fracture propagation on low angle terrain was most commonly associated with Sudden Compression fractures in compres sion tests.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".