MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965605821 · doi:10.1093/gji/ggz354

Exploration of continuous seismic recordings with a machine learning approach to document 20 yr of landslide activity in Alaska

2019· article· en· W2965605821 on OpenAlexaff
Clément Hibert, David Michéa, Floriane Provost, Marten Geertsema

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Journal International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLandslideGeologyPermafrostSeismologyPhysical geographyRemote sensingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Quantifying landslide activity in remote regions is difficult because of the numerous complications that prevent direct landslide observations. However, building exhaustive landslide catalogues is critical to document and assess the impacts of climate change on landslide activity such as increasing precipitation, glacial retreat and permafrost thawing, which are thought to be strong drivers of the destabilization of large parts of the high-latitude/altitude regions of the Earth. In this study, we take advantage of the capability offered by seismological observations to continuously and remotely record landslide occurrences at regional scales. We developed a new automated machine learning processing chain, based on the Random Forest classifier, able to automatically detect and identify landslide seismic signals in continuous seismic records. We processed two decades of continuous seismological observations acquired by the Alaskan seismic networks. This allowed detection of 5087 potential landslides over a period of 22 yr (1995–2017). We observe an increase in the number of landslides for the period and discuss the possible causes.

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 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 score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations84
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Journal InternationalSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207