The Role of Three‐Dimensional Boundary Stresses in Limiting the Occurrence and Size of Experimental Landslides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occurrence of seepage‐induced shallow landslides on hillslopes and steep channel beds is important for landscape evolution and natural hazards. Infinite‐slope stability models have been applied for seven decades, but sediment beds generally require higher water saturation levels than predicted for failure, and controlled experiments are needed to test models. We initiated 90 landslides in a 5 m long laboratory flume with a range in sediment sizes ( D = 0.7, 2, 5, and 15 mm) and hillslope angles ( θ = 20° to 43°), resulting in subsurface flow that spanned the Darcian and turbulent regimes, and failures that occurred with subsaturated and supersaturated sediment beds. Near complete saturation was required for failure in most experiments, with water levels far greater than predicted by infinite‐slope stability models. Although 3‐D force balance models predict that larger landslides are less stable, observed downslope landslide lengths were typically only several decimeters, not the entire flume length. Boundary stresses associated with short landslides can explain the increased water levels required for failure, and we suggest that short failures are tied to heterogeneities in granular properties. Boundary stresses also limited landslide thicknesses, and landslides progressively thinned on lower gradient hillslopes until they were one grain diameter thick, corresponding to a change from near‐saturated to supersaturated sediment beds. Thus, landslides are expected to be thick on steep hillslopes with large frictional stresses acting on the boundaries, whereas landslides should be thin on low‐gradient hillslopes or in channel beds with a critical saturation level that is determined by sediment size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".