MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408487860 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-10018

Improving Landslide-Event Inventories Using High-Fidelity Lidar Change Detection in Eastern Kentucky

2025· preprint· en· W4408487860 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Scheip, Matthew M. Crawford, Evelyn Bibbins, Hudson J. Koch, Alex Graham, Susan Winters, Vicky Hsiao, Luke Weidner, Mark S. Zellman, Scott A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideLidarEvent (particle physics)Remote sensingChange detectionHigh fidelityEnvironmental scienceGeologySeismologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following spatially expansive landslide events, rapid remote sensing data acquisition is perhaps the most efficient means of capturing the nature and extent of landsliding. This is particularly true in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America, where high annual rainfall, humidity, and vegetation can obscure landslide features within a single growing season. In July 2022, a convective rainfall event with an annual exceedance probability of 0.1–0.2% caused record-breaking flooding and widespread landslides throughout about 1,800 km2 of the Appalachian Plateau in eastern Kentucky. In the immediate weeks following the storm, field and remote-sensing reconnaissance mapping by the Kentucky Geological Survey identified approximately 1,065 landslides triggered during the event. In January 2023, the state of Kentucky acquired a lidar dataset over the impacted region, complimenting previous acquisitions from 2012 and 2017. We used point cloud alignment and surface-normal comparison techniques to compare 2012 and 2017 lidar point clouds to post-storm 2023 point clouds. This resulted in a lidar change detection dataset with a limit of detection of +/- 13 cm over an area of 1,800 km2. By using this dataset as a basis for our inventorying, we are finding more numerous and smaller landslides compared to state-of-practice mapping methods (e.g., aerial photo interpretation, hillshade comparisons, field-based inspections). Additionally, we can compute statistics on volume balance within landslides, thereby providing insight into landslide mechanics at scale that is difficult to impossible to understand without such data. Inventorying is ongoing, however, as of January 2025, we have inventoried over 2,000 landslides that occurred between 2017-2023 in 10% of the impacted area. This presentation will discuss how high-fidelity lidar change detection methods influence landslide inventory mapping, statistical characterizations of the landslide event, and ongoing efforts to advance AI-driven landslide inventory mapping.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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