MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509881502 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0039

Theory and calibration of the Pierre 2 stochastic rock fall dynamics simulation program

2016· article· en· W2509881502 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
A. Mitchell, Oldrich Hungr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaGeological Survey of CanadaBGC Engineering (Canada)
FundersInstitut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'AgricultureNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversität Wien
KeywordsRock mass classificationBedrockRockfallGeologyGeotechnical engineeringRepresentation (politics)Stochastic modellingCalibrationReliability (semiconductor)Rock mechanicsScale (ratio)MechanicsMathematicsLandslideStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of computer models to determine rock fall hazards is increasingly common, with increasingly complex models being developed. In most practical applications, slopes potentially affected by rock falls are characterized in general terms only, thus a simpler model is desirable to reduce the parameter uncertainty. The model presented here utilizes a lumped-mass representation of the rocks. Key features are the stochastic roughness angle to represent contact geometry variability, hyperbolic restitution factors, and a stochastic shape factor, which have been developed considering impact mechanics theory. Together, these features can yield realistic results for linear and angular velocity, bounce height, runout distance, and normal restitution factors greater than one while still being easy to calibrate. The model calibration has been carried out using detailed, full-scale experiments from a talus slope in France, a hard rock quarry in Austria, and a weak bedrock and talus slope in Japan. An observed rock fall event in British Columbia was modeled as a pseudoforward analysis to demonstrate the model validity. The usefulness of the model as a design tool has been demonstrated by using the simulation results as inputs for a hypothetical barrier design application, and calculating the reliability of the design values.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207