MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Why are some alpine catchments debris-flow active and others not? - the influence of geomorphology on debris-flow initiation

2020· article· en· W3085378102 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Aigner, L. S. Sklar, Markus Hrachowitz, Roland Kaitna

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebrisDebris flowLandslideFlash floodWatershedTerrainHydrology (agriculture)GeologyFlood mythSedimentDigital elevation modelEntrainment (biomusicology)SnowmeltFluvialGeomorphologyChannelizedChannel (broadcasting)GeographyRemote sensingSnowGeotechnical engineeringCartographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Processes like flash floods or debris flows, which typically occur in small headwater catchments, represent a substantial natural hazard in alpine regions. Due to the entrainment of sediment, the discharge of debris flows can be up to an order of magnitude larger compared to 100-year fluvial flood events in the same channel, which poses a great threat to affected communities. Besides the triggering rainfall, the initiation of debris flows depends on the watershed’s hydrological and geomorphological susceptibility, which makes it hard to predict and understand where and when debris flows occur. In this study we aim to quantify the influence of geomorphologic characteristics and long-term sediment dynamics on debris flow activity in the Austrian Alps. Based on a database of debris-flow events within the last 60+ years, a geomorphological assessment of active and non-active sub-catchments in different study regions is carried out. In a first step, we derive geomorphological characteristics, such as terrain roughness, Melton number as well as weathering potential of geological units found within the watersheds. Based on the findings of the terrain shape analysis, a set of representative watersheds will be selected for systematic monitoring of surface elevation changes over the project period of three years. This will be achieved by comparing digital surface models based on photogrammetric UAV surveys and monitoring of channel reaches with cameras. In order to project these findings onto a larger regional scale, the derived terrain parameters will be used to integrate and extend a previously designed hydro-meteorological debris-flow susceptibility model (Prenner et al., 2018) with a sediment-disposition-model. This will form the basis for an advanced debris flow forecasting tool and help to better assess the impact of climate change on the magnitude and frequency of future debris flows. References: Prenner, D., Kaitna, R., Mostbauer, K., & Hrachowitz, M. ( 2018). The value of using multiple hydrometeorological variables to predict temporal debris flow susceptibility in an Alpine environment. Water Resources Research, 54, 6822– 6843.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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