MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204475521 · doi:10.2495/risk020661

Assessment Of Mortality In Landslides In Single And Multiple Slopes

2002· article· en· W2204475521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Pacheco, A. Pinhel, R. Einsfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on modelling and simulation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideWork (physics)GeographyForensic engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental scienceGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work deals with predictions of mortality in landslide disasters by concepts of QZL4 (Quantitative Risk Assessment), widely used in the chemical industry, with proper orientation towards the geotechnical practice. These concepts are further coupled to the principle of maximum entropy to enhance rational predictions of mortality in single slopes, whereas a distribution of extremes is used to predict extreme mortality in multiple slopes. Accordingly, statistically consistent criteria leading to simple formulae for practical applications are presented in this work, based upon the development of specific probability distributions to predict the range of expected mortality in single slopes and the extreme mortality within a region comprising multiple slopes, These are useful information for implementation of preventive actions by civil defense and public safety authorities to reduce fatalities in landslide disasters. Practical applications include predictions of fatalities in landslides in Canada, Hong Kong and Rio de Janeiro,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on modelling and simulationSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207