Influence of slab depth spatial variability on skier-triggering probability and avalanche size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial variability of snowpack properties adds uncertainty in the evaluation of avalanche hazard. We propose a combined mechanical–statistical approach to study how spatial variation of slab depth affects the skier-triggering probability and possible release size. First, we generate multiple slab depth maps on a plane fictional slope based on Gaussian Random Fields (GRF) for a specific set of mean, variance and correlation length. For each GRF, we derive analytically the Skier Propagation Index (SPI). We then simulate multiple skier tracks and computed the probability based on the number of skier hits where SPI is below 1. Finally, we use a depth-averaged material point method to evaluate the possible avalanche size for given slab depth variations. The results of this analysis show that large correlation lengths and small variances lead to a lower probability of skier-triggering as it reduces the size and the number of areas with low slab depth. Then, we show the effect of skiing style and skier group size on skier-triggering probability. Spatial variability also affects the possible avalanche size by adding stress fluctuation causing early or late tensile failure. Finally, we demonstrate with our models the well-known relationship between the probability and the size in avalanche forecasting.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".