MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170340412

Study of holocene landslide deposits by comparison of GPR, refraction seismic and electrical resistivity data

2004· article· en· W2170340412 on OpenAlexaffabout
O.N. Cutlac, J. M. Maillol

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Grounds Penetrating Radar · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideGeologyGround-penetrating radarSeismic refractionHoloceneSeismologyRefractionElectrical resistivity and conductivityGeomorphologyElectrical resistivity tomographyRadarPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper integrates the results of a geophysical investigation of Holocene landslide events in the Cypress Hills, Canada. Ground penetrating radar (GPR), P-wave refraction seismic and electrical resistivity imaging were used to delineate the boundaries of the landslide masses. GPR provided information about the first meters of the subsurface. The seismic refraction survey complemented the datasets provided by GPR, giving results from greater depths. The electrical resistivity method, in principle the most indicated technique for such clay rich deposits, was used to provide a general structure of the upper 30 meters. Results from two locations provide an overall image of the structure and information about the vertical extent of the landslide. Two different interfaces, that probably mark the top :and the bottom of the landslide, are depicted. In connection with these boundaries, the thickness of the landslide deposits is estimated to increase roughly from 10-15 to more than 20 meters towards the toe of the landslide.

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)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Grounds Penetrating RadarSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207