MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996873001

Structures and failure mechanisms analysis of Turtle Mountain

2008· article· en· W2996873001 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideDiscontinuity (linguistics)RockslideGeologyTurtle (robot)Sea turtleDigital elevation modelGeographyGeomorphologyEcologyRemote sensingBiologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 30 M m3 rockslide that occurred on the east face of Turtle Mountain in the Crowsnest Pass area (Alberta) in 1903 is one of the most famous landslides in the world. In this paper, the structural features of the South part of Turtle Mountain are investigated in order to understand the present-day scar morphology and to identify the most important failure mechanisms. The structural features were mapped using a high resolution digital elevation model (DEM) in order to have a large overview of the relevant structural features. At the same time, a field survey was carried out and small scale fractures were analyzed in different parts of southern Turtle Mountain in order to confirm the DEM analysis. Results allow to identify six main discontinuity sets that influence the Turtle Mountain morphology. These discontinuity sets were then used to identify the potential failure mechanisms affecting Third Peak and South Peak area.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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