Highly energetic rockfalls: back analysis of the 2015 event from the Mel de la Niva, Switzerland
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 m3. 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".