MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3176272566 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-154

Characterising the kinematics of the Joffre Peak landslides using a combined numerical modeling-remote sensing approach

2021· article· en· W3176272566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicola Fullin, Monica Ghirotti, Davide Donati, Doug Stead

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideGeologyKinematicsPhysicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geological structure and kinematics are often the most important factors controlling the stability of high rock slopes; their characterization can provide insights that are instrumental in understanding the behaviour of a slope in addition to its evolution with time. In this research, we used a combined remote sensing-numerical modelling approach to characterize the Joffre Peak landslides (British Columbia, Canada), two rock avalanche events that occurred on May, 13th and 16th 2019. The May 13th event involved a volume of 2-3million m3, and resulted in a runout distance of 6 km. The May 16th event involved a volume of 2-3 million m3, and a runout distance of 4 km. The failure was likely promoted by permafrost degradation and reduction in shear strength along geological structures (in our simulation checked in dry condition). Using a wide range of techniques, including Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry, virtual outcrop discontinuity mapping, GIS analysis, and 3D distinct element numerical modelling, we investigated the important role that structural geology and slope kinematics played prior to and during the Joffre landslide events. In particular, we demonstrate that i) a very persistent, sub-vertical geological structures formed the lateral and rear release surfaces of the rock mass volume that failed as two discrete landslide events. The landslide blocks were separated by one such sub-vertical structure, which remains visible in the fresh landslide scar; ii) the first block, failed on May 13th 2019, involving planar sliding failure mechanism, possibly promoted by progressive failure and propagation of discontinuities along the basal surface. The detachment of this block enhanced the kinematic freedom of the second landslide block, which, on May 16th, failed as wedge/toppling mechanism; iii) the first landslide block acted as a key block; its displacement and failure provided the kinematic freedom for the occurrence of the second landslide. In this paper we show that combining remote sensing mapping and 3D numerical modelling allows for the identification of the structural geological features controlling the stability and evolution of high rock slopes in alpine environments. We also show that constraining and validating the numerical modelling results using historical data is of paramount importance to ensure that the correct failure mechanism of the landslides is simulated.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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