Evaluating the performance of propagation models of flow-like landslides at regional scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Propagation models of flow-like landslides can be calibrated by comparing on-site evidence of past occurrences with the propagation paths and the deposition zones resulting from numerical simulations of the phenomena. Most typically, the performance of these models is evaluated considering the events independently from one another and, heuristically, i.e., subjectively assessing the fit between numerical results and available on-site data. At regional scale, however, storms often trigger, within a given area, multiple landslides of the flow type that occur more or less simultaneously. At this scale, a procedure that objectively quantifies the success, or the errors, of the numerical simulations of multiple landslides is lacking. In this study, such a quantitative calibration procedure is proposed, and assessed, considering the debris flows that occurred in Sarno in 1998 (Italy). The numerical model used is called Debris Flow Predictor (DFP), which is able to simulate the propagation paths and the accumulation depths of multiple debris flows, at regional scale, from a series of predefined triggering areas. The model employs a cellular automata method with a probabilistic behavioral rule, which is a function of the adopted digital elevation model and a series of parameters related to the erosional, the depositional, and the spreading capacity of the propagating soil mass. The numerical simulations were evaluated over the study area considering the entire set of debris flow events, as well as the individual debris flows, following a preliminary discretization of both the mapped footprints and the remaining portion of the territory. The relative and total operator characteristic curves, in addition to 6 indicators derived from a confusion matrix, have been used to quantify the performance of the simulations. The results show that the quantitative evaluation of the numerical results is essential to properly calibrate the adopted model, i.e., to discriminate among different simulations arising from different sets of model parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".