Breaching and liquefaction in subaqueous retrogressive flow slides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although retrogressive flow slides in subaqueous sandy slopes can be very large and cause substantial damage, the failure mechanisms of such slides are not very clear yet. This study analyses two well-monitored flow slides in a shoal margin in the Western Scheldt estuary in the Netherlands: a natural flow slide that eroded 300 m into the edge of the shoal and an artificially induced flow slide that was triggered by dredging and eroded only 30 m of the shoal margin. Both slides were simulated with a newly developed numerical model that describes the physics of slow retrogressive breaching and the much faster retrogression of statically liquefied fine to medium (silty) sands. The simulations show that the differences in trigger and size can be explained by assuming that in the larger slide both retrogressive breaching and static liquefaction took place, while in the smaller one only breaching occurred. The main contribution of retrogressive liquefaction to the larger slide was the generation of a temporary high-erosive density flow that proved sufficient to create such a high, near-vertical slope that the breaching process could continue over a long period and distance. It is therefore likely that both breaching and static liquefaction play a role in large natural flow slides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".