The Cheam Slide : a study of the interrelationship of rock avalanches and seismicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is being increasingly realized that there exists an interrelationship between seismicity and rock slope failures. Possible chronological clustering of rock avalanches in the Fraser River corridor was investigated to determine if a common seismic trigger existed. It was determined that the events occurred throughout the Holocene indicating that either these slides were not seismically triggered or that seismic triggers were chronologically unrelated. Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquakes are believed to have occurred throughout the Holocene (Adams, 1989; Atwater, 1987; Hull, 1987). The ages of the earthquakes were compared to the ages of rock avalanches in the Fraser River corridor, but no distinct correlation could be made. The lack of distinct correlation between large rock avalanches in Fraser Corridor and paleoseismicity, and the absence of event clustering, indicated either seismicity was not a factor, or that these rock avalanches may not have been susceptible to seismic triggering. A stability study of Cheam Slide was performed to investigate the susceptibility of large rock avalanches to earthquake triggering. The results suggested that the seismic susceptibility of a slope is closely linked to the displacement the slope must undergo for failure to take place. A large critical displacement may render the slope relatively insensitive to seismic triggering, while a low critical displacement may result in high seismic susceptibility. A comparison was made between the effects of seismic and pore pressure related triggering. The results indicated that a high critical displacement slope, which is close to failure, may be more likely to fail by high pore pressures than by seismic loading. Low critical displacement slopes which are stable enough to surviving hydrodynamic loading may, because of their susceptibility to seismic triggering, pose the greatest hazard.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".