MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159377854 · doi:10.3390/geosciences11050188

Impact-Detection Algorithm That Uses Point Clouds as Topographic Inputs for 3D Rockfall Simulations

2021· article· en· W3159377854 on OpenAlexaff
François Noël, Catherine Cloutier, Michel Jaboyedoff, Jacques Locat

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainRockfallPoint cloudSurface finishSurface roughnessAlgorithmDigital elevation modelComputer scienceRaster graphicsGeologyRemote sensingComputer visionLandslideGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous 3D rockfall simulation models use coarse gridded digital terrain model (DTM raster) as their topography input. Artificial surface roughness is often added to overcome the loss of details that occurs during the gridding process. Together with the use of sensitive energy damping parameters, they provide great freedom to the user at the expense of the objectivity of the method. To quantify and limit the range of such artificial values, we developed an impact-detection algorithm that can be used to extract the perceived surface roughness from detailed terrain samples in relation to the size of the impacting rocks. The algorithm can also be combined with a rebound model to perform rockfall simulations directly on detailed 3D point clouds. The abilities of the algorithm are demonstrated by objectively extracting different perceived surface roughnesses from detailed terrain samples and by simulating rockfalls on detailed terrain models as proof of concept. The results produced are also compared to that of rockfall simulation software CRSP 4, RocFall 8 and Rockyfor3D 5.2.15 as validation. Although differences were observed, the validation shows that the algorithm can produce similar results. With the presented approach not being limited to coarse terrain models, the need for adding artificial terrain roughness or for adjusting sensitive damping parameters on a per-site basis is reduced, thereby limiting the related biases and subjectivity.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207