MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794483599 · doi:10.1144/sp477.1

SPLASH: semi-empirical prediction of landslide-generated displacement wave run-up heights

2018· article· en· W2794483599 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Oppikofer, Reginald L. Hermanns, Nicholas J. Roberts, Martina Böhme

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplashLandslideDisplacement (psychology)GeologySeismologyGeodesyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Displacement waves (or tsunamis) generated by sub-aerial landslides cause damage along shorelines over long distances, making run-up assessment a crucial component of landslide risk analysis. Although site-specific modelling provides important insight into the behaviour of potential waves, more general approaches using limited input parameters are necessary for preliminary assessments. We use a catalogue of landslide-generated displacement waves to develop semi-empirical relationships linking displacement wave run-up ( R in metres) to distance from landslide impact ( x in kilometres) and to landslide volume ( V in millions of cubic metres). For individual events, run-up decreases with distance according to power laws. Consideration of ten events demonstrates that run-up increases with landslide volume, also according to a power law. Combining these relationships gives the SPLASH equation: R = a V b x c , with best-fitted parameters a = 18.093, b = 0.57110 and c = −0.74189. The 95% prediction interval between the calculated and measured run-up values is 2.58, meaning that 5% of the measured run-up heights exceed the predicted value by a factor of 2.58 or more. This relatively large error is explained by local amplifications of wave height and run-up. Comparisons with other displacement wave models show that the SPLASH equation is a valuable tool for the first-stage preliminary hazard and risk assessment for unstable rock slopes above water bodies.

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)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207