Probabilistic prediction of rock avalanche runout using a numerical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock avalanches can be a significant hazard to communities located in mountainous areas. Probabilistic predictions of the 3D impact area of these events are crucial for assessing rock avalanche risk. Semi-empirical, calibration-based numerical runout models are one tool that can be used to make these predictions. When doing so, uncertainties resulting from both noisy calibration data and uncertain governing movement mechanism(s) must be accounted for. In this paper, a back-analysis of a database of 31 rock avalanche case histories is used to assess both of these sources of uncertainty. It is found that forecasting results are dominated by uncertainties associated with the bulk basal resistance of the path material. A method to account for both calibration and mechanistic uncertainty is provided, and this method is evaluated using pseudo-forecasts of two case histories. These pseudo-forecasts show that inclusion of expert judgement when assessing the bulk basal resistance along the path can reduce mechanistic uncertainty and result in more precise predictions of rock avalanche runout. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10346-022-01939-y.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".