Can point cloud data be used to calculate time to failure of a landslide?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Point cloud data capturing ground surface elevation at two instants in time are commonly used to identify the occurrence of landslides, identify their spatial extent, and to provide an estimate of the volume of depletion/accretion. In this study, it is hypothesized that this same point cloud data has the potential to yield much more valuable quantitative information regarding landslide behaviour, including the direction, magnitude, and rate of surface displacement. Given point cloud data contains roughness information, shaded projections (hillshade images) of the slope at two or more instants in time can be processed using digital image correlation (DIC) to track displacement in the plane of the projection. If multiple view angles are used to generate the hill shade images, 3D surface displacements of the landslide surface should theoretically be resolved. Furthermore, if point clouds are generated with sufficiently high temporal resolution, it should be possible to estimate the time to failure. We explore this hypothesis in field experiment conducted in Tsukuba, Japan in which we bring a 3.5 m high earth dam to shear failure under high reservoir levels and extreme rainfall. Point clouds of the downstream dam surface generated at high temporal resolution were successfully used to calculate the 3D displacement of the dam surface, and to calculate the time of failure using the inverse-velocity method to within four minutes of the observed slope failure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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.
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".