MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W353180682

Waiting Time Between Avalanches

2006· article· en· W353180682 on OpenAlexaff
D. M. McClung

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2006 International Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, Colorado · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-organized criticalityScale invarianceEvent (particle physics)Scale (ratio)Poisson distributionStatistical physicsSnowTime domainCriticalityStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsMeteorologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the requirements for a self-organized critical system is scale invariance in the time or frequency domain. Sandpile avalanches and other types of avalanches have been analyzed from the perspective of common characteristics of critical systems. However, snow avalanches have not been completely analyzed, particularly in the frequency domain. Snow avalanches constitute a natural hazard and they are of much more practical importance than other types of avalanches so far analyzed. In this paper, a waiting time analysis of 15,990 slab avalanche events collected in two avalanche areas over 23 years from 110 avalanche paths is given. The objective is to analyze the frequency spectrum for waiting time between avalanches for scale invariance and the presence of 1/f noise as suggested for a characteristic of self-organized criticality. The assumptions of the rare events approximation are used: namely that the events and paths are independent, they do not overlap in time and space and the probability of events is small over a suitable time scale. Random Poisson events are assumed with the waiting time being exponential for an individual avalanche path. The results of the analyses show that a 1/f frequency spectrum is unlikely for either avalanche area over any significant range of frequency. Further, scale invariance of waiting time is possible for the entire avalanche areas only over a short time frame of a few hours. However, self-similar clustering of event waiting times is possible for some individual avalanche paths with long mean waiting times between events. Mean waiting times range between about 2 days to 540 days for the individual paths. In combination, the results suggest that neither the time arrival nor waiting time between avalanche events conform to that of a critical system as defined for self-organized criticality or thermodynamics. If snow avalanches are to conform to a critical system in geophysics then a revision of the requirements or definition is called for.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2006 International Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, ColoradoSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207