MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403837113 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2024.111078

Comprehensive earthquake-induced landslide inventory dataset of the 2010 Chile megathrust earthquake

2024· article· en· W4403837113 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandra Serey, Sergio A. Sepúlveda

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaResearch Councils UKAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloAgenția Națională pentru Cercetare și Dezvoltare
KeywordsLandslideSeismologyGeologyEarthquake predictionEarthquake casualty estimationEarthquake scenarioForensic engineeringEngineeringSeismic hazard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chile is one of the most seismically active countries on Earth and is often associated with cascading hazards, such as ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunamis, and coseismic landslides. Additionally, removal mass is a global hazard with devastating impacts resulting in thousands of fatalities every year, substantial economic losses, and long-term economic disruption. The dataset described in this article consists of a comprehensive landslide inventory for the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake between 32.5° S and 38.5° S°. There are 1226 landslides over a mapped c.120,500 km 2 (1059 disrupted slides, 110 flows, 49 lateral spreads and eight coherent slides). The dataset was collected from bibliographic compilation, mapping by interpretation of Landsat satellite images, and field inspections. This data can be used as input in earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility models to help predict coseismic landslide occurrences after megathrust earthquakes and inform land use planning processes incorporating cascading hazard management and prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207