MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910125950 · doi:10.4095/247994

Landslide susceptibility maps of the Sea to Sky Corridor, British Columbia - a qualitative approach

2009· report· en· W2910125950 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Blais-Stevens, R Kung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideSkyGeographyCartographyGeologyArchaeologyGeomorphologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, the Sea to Sky Corridor has witnessed 155 reported landslide events in the last 154 years. As part of the Public Safety Geoscience Program at the Geological Survey of Canada, a preliminary landslide susceptibility mapping activity was undertaken. The resulting maps are presented as work-in-progress. The method used was a qualitative parametric approach based on the available landslide inventory and baseline information (Journeay and Monger, 1998; Riopel et al., 2006; Blais-Stevens, 2007; 2008abc; Blais-Stevens and Septer, 2008; Couture and Riopel, 2008). We divided the landslide susceptibility thematic mapping activity into producing two separate maps based on the more frequent types of landslides in the area and the fact that the parameters causing these types of landslides are very different from one another. One landslide susceptibility map was created for rock falls/rock slides and the other, for debris flows. In each map, a series of information layers (Fig. 1) was compiled from available documentation and/or derived from DEMs (Riopel et al., 2006; Couture and Riopel, 2008). From this information, a parametric equation was defined where the information layers served as parameters with each parameter being given a weight. The units within each layer of information were also given a rating (See examples of rating in Tables 1 and 2). The resulting equation gave a Susceptibility Index (SI) ranging between 0-1 for each (25 m x 25 m) pixel. For the final products, SI units were divided into four colour-coded categories, from Low (green), Medium-Low (yellow), Medium-High (orange), and High (red).

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→