MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190628334 · doi:10.1029/2021gl094038

Quantifying the Effect of Precipitation on Landslide Hazard in Urbanized and Non‐Urbanized Areas

2021· article· en· W3190628334 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Johnston, Frances V. Davenport, Lijing Wang, Jef Caers, Suresh Muthukrishnan, Marshall Burke, Noah S. Diffenbaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersFurman UniversityStanford University
KeywordsLandslideUrbanizationPrecipitationHazardBayEnvironmental scienceClimatologyClimate changeHazard analysisPhysical geographyGeographyGeologyMeteorologyOceanographySeismologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although most landslides are precipitation‐triggered, a number of other complex conditions simultaneously predispose any given slope to failure, with the impact of urbanization posing particular scientific challenges. We use panel regression with fixed effects—which controls for observed and unobserved time‐variant and time‐invariant influences—to quantify the effect of precipitation accumulation on landslide concentration across the Pacific Coast region of the United States. We find that landslide hazard is most sensitive to precipitation variations in urbanized areas. This finding is robust across 1‐day, 10‐day, and 30‐day periods of precipitation accumulation, among individual Pacific Coast states, and when the analysis is confined to the San Francisco Bay Area (a subregion with both urban and rural areas). Our results corroborate existing hypotheses that urbanization increases landslide hazard, while demonstrating the importance of considering interactions with urbanization when predicting landslide hazard in the current climate, and under climate change scenarios.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207