Integrated back and forward analysis of rock slope stability and rockslide runout at Afternoon Creek, Washington
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hazard assessments involving large rock slopes are often problematic, given the influence of geology on failure kinematics and the subsequent influence of the failure kinematics on the rockslide runout. The 2003 Afternoon Creek rockslide in northwest Washington is one such example, where 750 000 m3 of rock slid from a steep ridge harmlessly into Afternoon Creek. However, topographic and structural controls at the source area unexpectedly redirected a small volume (<10%) down the opposite side of the ridge along a much steeper travel path, impacting the highway below. Postfailure investigations indicate that the slope still presents a danger. To address this, a framework was developed that links back analyses with forward modelling of failure initiation and runout. Field mapping and data collection were specifically tailored for these analyses. Advanced numerical modelling was used to assess likely rockslide source areas, volumes, and controlling features. These were then used to guide a series of three-dimensional runout simulations to model rockslide travel path, reach, and velocities. The results show that a rockslide originating from the ridge could occur again and that the topography would again direct a small percentage of material down the backside which would reach the highway below.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".