MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225130936 · doi:10.11159/icgre22.107

Combination of UAV-borne LiDAR and UAV-borne photogrammetry to assess slope stability

2022· article· en· W4225130936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stella Coccia, Marwan Al Heib, Emmanuelle Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarPhotogrammetryRemote sensingGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring and assessing slope stability quickly and accurately over large areas is a technical challenge. In this study, we investigated the combination of two UAV/UAS (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or System) techniques to compensate for the limitations of each remote sensing technique, in the context of the Belchatow lignite mine (central Poland). The test site is one of the largest open-pit mines in Europe. It is characterized by complex geological and mining conditions Its western slope, located near the Debina salt dome, requires specific mine design to ensure safe and effective lignite exploitation. In this experiment, which is a first on this scale, two UAV-borne LiDAR and UAV-borne photogrammetry surveys were performed, the first in November 2016 and the second in March 2017. The occurrence of a landslide between these two campaigns allowed to precisely identify and study the impacted zone in terms of surface displacements, slip surfaces and fractures changes. It allowed also confirming previous results about the mine stability issues in the covered area, where a geotechnical monitoring was installed just before the first UAV-borne LiDAR and UAV-borne photogrammetry. Conclusions regarding the complementary approaches set-up were also brought, along with practical recommendations for monitoring and rapidly asses slope stability, particularly for inaccessible areas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207