MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289134264 · doi:10.3390/geosciences12080298

Updated Understanding of the Ripley Landslide Kinematics Using Satellite InSAR

2022· article· en· W4289134264 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amir Soltanieh, Renato Macciotta

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityCanadian Pacific Kansas CityUniversity of AlbertaTransport Canada
KeywordsLandslideGeologyFault scarpInterferometric synthetic aperture radarLandslide classificationGeomorphologyKinematicsSeismologySatelliteGeodesyRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Thompson River valley hosts 14 landslides along a 10 km section, which threaten the two major railroads connecting the Port of Vancouver and the interior provinces in Canada. The Ripley landslide is one of the active landslides in this section of the valley. Previous research at this site included an analysis of landslide deformations using satellite radar interferometry focusing on deformations measured in the line of sight between the satellite and the slopes, and average downslope displacement (deformations projected in the average downslope direction). Since then, further stratigraphic interpretation has provided an enhanced understanding of the Ripley landslide. In this update, the new stratigraphic interpretation is supplemented with satellite InSAR data from May 2015 to May 2017 to enhance the current understanding of the landslide kinematics. The results indicate that the Ripley landslide has been moving at a rate between 2 and 82 mm per year, corresponding to a very slow to slow landslide. It is also observed that the movements tend to be near-horizontal on areas closer to the toe of the landslide, while the vertical component of deformation increases near the scarp of the landslide. This, together with the interpreted stratigraphy, indicates the kinematics corresponds to a compound landslide. This is consistent with interpreted landslide kinematics of older, more mature landslides in the area that have shown episodes of retrogression and suggests the possibility of a similar future behaviour of the Ripley landslide.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.234
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207