MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922185530 · doi:10.1680/jgeen.18.00207

Review and latest insights into rock fall temporal variability associated with weather

2019· article· en· W2922185530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Renato Macciotta

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardProbabilistic logicClimate changeFocus (optics)Data scienceMeteorologyComputer scienceClimatologyGeologyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a review of historical and latest insights into rock fall hazard temporal variability associated with weather. Reviewed research expands several locations around the world; however, focus has been on the recent advances in western Canada and from the author's experience. The recent research reviewed has provided new insights into the relationships between weather and rock fall occurrences and the recent focus on probabilistic approaches appears to be the way forward for rock fall hazard management. This paper also references some statistical tools for quantification of weather–rock fall relationships that allows better understanding of the stochastic nature of the phenomena. A decisive strength of how these methodologies are developing lies in the fact that adoption of probabilistic tools allows direct translation into rock fall hazard quantification that reflects its temporal variability. When coupled with weather forecasting, these tools can provide real-time forecasting of rock fall hazard. Moreover, some of these tools provide a way forward for forecasting the effects of climate change on rock fall hazards.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207