MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982145379 · doi:10.4095/213820

Workshop on landslide hazards and risk management in Canada

2002· report· en· W2982145379 on OpenAlexaffabout
R Couture

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cohasset A-52 drill site of Petro-Canada is situated in 34 M of water approximately 25 kM southwest of Sable Island (lat: 43-51-09N; long:60-37-44W; see fig.1 ). It is located south of West Bar in an area dominated by shoreface-connected ridges. The drill rig Rowan Gorilla was situated on the south flank of such a shoreface ridge during drilling operations of January - March, 1986. The local bed dips at a slope of approximately 3 degrees to the south and is composed of medium - coarse size siliceous sand. Seismic data suggests that this sand ridge has migrated to the south in modern times. Thus the Cohasset site appears to be a region of net=sand infilling. The site is intermittently rippled and Mega-rippled by waves and currents. Sand transport and scouring around the spud cane is considered by the diving observers, Wolf Sub-Ocean Ltd., to be significant. This is thought to be due to winter storm-driven currents and wave Motion. The Geological Survey of Canada was invited by Petra-Canada Ltd. to carry out a joint _study on the transport of sand at the Cohasset site in order to assess seabed erosion and deposition and the conditions under which sand transport takes place, Six (6) storm events were experienced during this study. The Most severe wave conditions of the study were experienced during our arrival at the rig. During the subsequent detection period the most severe conditions experienced were: MAXIMUM SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT ............ 4.5 M; MAXIMUM MEAN WAVE PERIOD................... 7.2 s; MAXIMUM NEAR BEO CURRENT ................... 0.8 m/s; MAXIMUM WIN ? SPEED ........................ 27 m/s; Sand was seen in suspension, the bed was covered with hummocky megaripples and scouring around the spud cans was taking place at the time of our arrival; that is during the passage of storm 1. Despite the passage of several subsequent storms active suspended sediment transport of sand was detected only under storm 6. The prevailing direction of net sediment transport appears to be to the west. Transport took place predominantly as bedload. Wave and current formed ripples were detected during each of the UFO dives. These appeared to change size and orientation from dive to dive, and illustrated bedload transport of sand under storms 2 - 6. The Majority (90%} of the suspended particulate Matter detected in the sampling program was organic. Diatoms, organic detritus and pellets were suspended by wave motion during the middle four storms of the study: 30 January, 2 February, 5 February and 6 February, 1986. Minor amounts << 107.) of fine-grain sand were sampled throughout the study, but appeared to bear no relationship to wave or current strength. Sand was suspended during storms 1 and 6 which occurred on 29 January and 10 February, 1986. It is concluded that the natural seabed is stable under the storm conditions 2 - 5 observed during this study. It is also concluded that active transport of bottom sediment (Mean diameter - 0.4 MM) took place during the storm 1 (of the 29 January, 1986). Threshold conditions for sand suspension were exceeded during this storm and were barely reached during storm 6. Megaripples are intermittently present. They form and are destroyed within days of the passage of storms.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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