Development of a methodology for predicting landslide hazards at a regional scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Landslide risk analysis is a common geotechnical evaluation and it aims to protect life and infrastructure. In the case of sensitive clay zones, landslides can affect large areas and are difficult to predict. Here we propose a methodology to determine the landslide hazard across a large territory, and we apply our approach to the Saint-Jean-Vianney area, Quebec, Canada. The initial step consists of creating a 3D model of the surficial deposits of the target area. After creating a chart of the material electrical resistivity adapted for eastern Canada, we applied electric induction to interpret the regional soil. We transposed parameter values obtained from the laboratory to a larger scale, that is to a regional slope using the results of a back analysis undertaken earlier, on a smaller slide within the same area. The regional 3D model of deposits is then used to develop a zonation map of slopes that are at risk and their respective constraint areas with the study region. This approach allowed us to target specific areas where a more precise stability analysis would be required. Our methodology offers an effective tool for stability analysis in territories characterized by the presence of sensitive clays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".