Rainfall-triggered slope instabilities under a changing climate: comparative study using historical and projected precipitation extremes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to quantitatively assess the impact of extreme precipitation events under current and future climate scenarios on landslides. Rainfall-triggered landslides are analyzed primarily using extreme precipitation estimates, derived using the so-called stationary assumption (i.e., statistics of extreme events will not vary significantly over a long period of time). However, extreme precipitation patterns have shown to vary substantially due to climate change, leading to unprecedented changes in the statistics of extremes. In this study, a nonstationary approach, applied to climate model simulations, is adopted to project the upper bound of future precipitation extremes. Future precipitation estimates are obtained from the coupled model intercomparison project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations. Baseline (historical) and projected (future) precipitation extremes are obtained for a study area near Seattle, Washington. The precipitation patterns are integrated into a series of fully coupled two-dimensional stress – unsaturated flow finite element simulations. The responses of the baseline and projected models at a 7 day rainfall duration obtained for a 50 year recurrence interval are compared in terms of the local strength reduction factor, displacements, matric suctions, and suction stresses. The results indicate that the usage of historical rainfall data can lead to underestimations in the hydromechanical behavior of natural slopes where locally increased transient seepage rates occur from the upper bound of future extreme precipitation estimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".