MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4214699168 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0146

The scale effect in extreme snow avalanche runout distance

2022· article· en· W4214699168 on OpenAlexaffvenue
D. M. McClung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainScale (ratio)GeologySnowRange (aeronautics)MeteorologyGeodesyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEngineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scale effect in avalanche runout distance refers to the question of whether paths with larger scale such as total vertical drop may have longer runout distance than shorter paths. Here the effect is analyzed using 475 values of extreme runout distance measured from five mountain ranges. The results show that within each range there is such a scale effect. However, the statistical significance of the scale effect reduces sharply as the median scale parameter, such as total vertical drop, increases. Results from maximum speed data of avalanches also show that maximum speed increases with path scale. The reduction of significance of the scale effect with the path scale combined with the speed data analysis suggests that the terrain just upslope of the runout zone may be crucial in determining the runout distance. The overall results should be of interest to those attempting to model avalanche runout using either empirical statistical methods or avalanche dynamics.

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)0.011
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→