Highly energetic rockfalls: back analysis of the 2015 event from the Mel de la Niva, Switzerland
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Process-based rockfall simulation models attempt to better emulate rockfall dynamics to different degrees. As no model is perfect, their development is often accompanied and validated by the valuable collection of rockfall databases covering a range of site geometries, rock masses, velocities, and related energies that the models are designed for. Additionally, such rockfall data can serve as a base for assessing the model’s sensitivity to different parameters, evaluating their predictability and helping calibrate the model’s parameters from back calculation and analyses. As the involved rock volumes/masses increase, the complexity of conducting field-test experiments to build up rockfall databases increases to a point where such experiments become impracticable. To the author’s knowledge, none have reconstructed rockfall data in 3D from real events involving block fragments of approximately 500 metric tons. A back analysis of the 2015 Mel de la Niva rockfall event is performed in this paper, contributing to a novel documentation in terms of kinetic energy values, bounce heights, velocities, and 3D lateral deviations of these rare events involving block fragments of approximately 200 m 3 . Rockfall simulations are then performed on a “per-impact” basis to illustrate how the reconstructed data from the site can be used to validate results from simulation models.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it