MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392506123 · doi:10.1061/9780784485316.062

Proactive Landslide Risk Management Using Regional Lidar Change Detection

2024· article· en· W4392506123 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Lato, Megan van Veen, Luke Weidner, Alex Graham, Vicky Hsiao, Corey Scheip, Julia Frazier, Michael J. Porter, Scott A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarLandslideChange detectionRisk managementRemote sensingComputer scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence or reactivation and acceleration of landslides can occur unannounced and can result in significant impacts to life, property, or the environment. The processes of slope deformation and progressive failure are more active than many realize; rapid slope failures are often preceded by years of erosion, deformation, and smaller failures. In the last 10 years, the use of lidar-derived elevation models has supported the identification of landslides across large regions and is increasing the ability of geoprofessionals to identify precursory signs of failures. During the same time period, advanced computational techniques to numerically compare multiple bare-earth lidar point cloud datasets, known as lidar change detection (LCD), coupled with the development of automated workflows, have resulted in the ability to conduct LCD rapidly across large areas. This paper demonstrates how regional LCD can provide a more complete understanding of landslide hazards and better management of risk. The paper also presents preliminary tests of applying image segmentation techniques to support LCD analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→