MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944164092 · doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.05.003

Rock avalanche mobility: The role of path material

2019· article· en· W2944164092 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Aaron, Scott McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Geology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsTerrainGeologyDebrisMechanism (biology)Work (physics)Geotechnical engineeringStress pathShear (geology)PetrologyEngineeringPhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock avalanches are high velocity flows of fragmented rock that can dramatically alter landscapes, and impact people and infrastructure far from their source. These catastrophic events have been studied for over a century, however, a consensus regarding the mechanism(s) that govern their motion has yet to emerge. This work details the results of the back-analysis of 45 rock avalanche case histories using a semi-empirical runout model that simulates motion over 3D terrain. These simulations account for topographic effects and bulk basal shear resistance variation during motion. For a subset of the cases, we find that a volume-dependent mechanism appears to influence basal resistance in the source zone. However, once the material has vacated the source zone, our results suggest that the character of the path material strongly controls mobility, and appears to dominate over other, potentially volume-dependent, mechanisms that may also be at work. The results presented in this paper support the longstanding hypothesis that the interaction of flowing debris with the underlying substrate is an important consideration in rock avalanche runout prediction, and that this mechanism warrants further research.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations124
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering GeologySame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207