MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774025049 · doi:10.1002/esp.4313

Distinguishing between debris flows and hyperconcentrated flows: an example from the eastern Swiss Alps

2017· article· en· W2774025049 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyHyperconcentrated flowDebris flowRockslideDebrisCobbleTributaryMudflowMass movementGeomorphologyMass wastingMoraineLandslideSedimentRockfallHydrology (agriculture)Sediment transportBed loadGlacierGeotechnical engineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Much research has been done on water‐rich mass flows, but the distinction between hyperconcentrated flows and debris flows, and whether the two are indeed different processes, continue to be debated. Here, we contribute to the ongoing discussion of these phenomena by describing and interpreting the deposit of a large landslide‐induced mass flow in the eastern Swiss Alps. About 9400 years ago, 10‐12 km 3 of limestone detached from the wall of the Vorderrhein River valley and rapidly fragmented while sliding towards the valley bottom. The rock mass struck the valley floor with enormous force and liquefied at least 1 km 3 of valley‐fill sediments. A slurry of liquefied sediment – the ‘Bonaduz gravel’ – traveled tens of kilometres down the Vorderrhein valley from the impact site, carrying huge fragments of rockslide debris that became stranded on the valley floor, forming hills termed ‘tomas’. Part of the flow was deflected by a cross‐valley barrier and traveled 14 km up a tributary of the Vorderrhein valley. The Bonaduz gravel is >65 m thick and fines upward from massive sandy cobble gravel at its base to silty sand at its top. Sedimentologic and geomorphic evidence indicates that Bonaduz gravel was transported as a hyperconcentated flow, likely above a basal carpet of coarse diamictic sediment that behaved as a debris flow. The large amount of water involved in the flow indicates that at least part of the Flims rockslide entered a lake. The Bonaduz deposit shares many properties with sediments left by hyperconcentrated flows generated in flumes, including normal grading and elutriation pipes produced by the rapid escape of fluids when the flow comes to rest. These properties are characteristic of non‐Newtonian laminar flows with high sediment concentrations. Our study reinforces laboratory and theoretical studies showing that debris flows and hyperconcentrated flows are different processes. © 2017 The Authors. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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