Decreasing Landslide Erosion on Steeper Slopes in Soil‐Mantled Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Slope‐stability models predict that steeper hillslopes require smaller hydrological triggers for shallow landslides to occur due to the added downslope pull of gravity, which should result in more frequent landslides and faster erosion. However, field observations indicate that landslide frequency does not consistently increase on steeper hillslopes. Here, we use measurements of 1,096 soil landslides in California and Switzerland, and a compilation of landslide geometries, to show that steeper hillslopes typically have thinner soils and that thin soils inhibit landslides due to enhanced roles of cohesion and boundary stresses. We find that the landscape‐averaged landslide erosion depth peaks near the threshold slope for instability, and it drops to half that value on hillslopes that are just 5° to 10° steeper. We propose that faster rates of soil creep on steeper slopes cause thin and more stable soils, which in turn reduces landslide erosion, despite the added pull of gravity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".