MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999405690 · doi:10.1007/s10346-019-01332-2

Observations on the May 2019 Joffre Peak landslides, British Columbia

2020· article· en· W2999405690 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pierre A. Friele, Tom Millard, A. Mitchell, Kate E. Allstadt, Brian Menounos, Marten Geertsema, John J. Clague

Bibliographic record

VenueLandslides · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British ColumbiaMinistry of ForestsGeoscience BC
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTula Foundation
KeywordsDebrisGeologyDebris flowLandslideRockfallGeomorphologyFlood mythElevation (ballistics)Hydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringArchaeologyGeographyOceanographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Two catastrophic landslides occurred in quick succession on 13 and 16 May 2019, from the north face of Joffre Peak, Cerise Creek, southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. With headscarps at 2560 m and 2690 m elevation, both began as rock avalanches, rapidly transforming into debris flows along middle Cerise Creek, and finally into debris floods affecting the fan. Beyond the fan margin, a flood surge on Cayoosh Creek reached bankfull and attenuated rapidly downstream; only fine sediment reached Duffey Lake. The toe of the main debris flow deposit reached 4 km from the headscarp, with a travel angle of 0.28, while the debris flood phase reached the fan margin 5.9 km downstream, with a travel angle of 0.22. Photogrammetry indicates the source volume of each event is 2–3 Mm3, with combined volume of 5 Mm3. Lidar differencing, used to assess deposit volume, yielded a similar total result, although error in the depth estimate introduced large volume error masking the expected increase due to dilation and entrainment. The average velocity of the rock avalanche-debris flow phases, from seismic analysis, was ~ 25–30 m/s, and the velocity of the 16 May debris flood on the upper fan, from super-elevation and boulder sizes, was 5–10 m/s. The volume of debris deposited on the fan was ~ 104 m3, 2 orders of magnitude less than the avalanche/debris flow phases. Progressive glacier retreat and permafrost degradation were likely the conditioning factors; precursor rockfall activity was noted at least ~6 months previous; thus, the mountain was primed to fail. The 13 May landslide was apparently triggered by rapid snowmelt, with debuttressing triggering the 16 May event.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandslidesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207