Probabilistic Estimates of Extreme Snow Avalanche Runout Distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The estimation of runout distances for long return period avalanches is vital in zoning schemes for mountainous countries. There are two broad methods to estimate snow avalanche runout distance. One involves the use of a physical model to calculate speeds along the incline, with runout distance determined when the speed drops to zero. The second method, which is used here, is based on empirical or statistical models from databases of extreme runout for a given mountain range or area. The second method has been used for more than 40 years with diverse datasets collected from North America and Europe. The primary reason for choosing the method used here is that it is independent of physical models such as avalanche dynamics, which allows comparisons between methods. In this paper, data from diverse datasets are analyzed to explain the relation between them to give an overall view of the meaning of the data. Runout is formulated from nine different datasets and 738 values of extreme runout, mostly with average return periods of about 100 years. Each dataset was initially fit to 65 probability density functions (pdf) using five goodness-of-fit tests. Detailed discussion and analysis are presented for a set of extreme value distributions (Gumbel, Frechet, Weibull). Two distributions had exemplary results in terms of goodness of fit: the generalized logistic (GLO) and the generalized extreme value (GEV) distributions. Considerations included both the goodness-of-fit and the heaviness of the tail, of which the latter is important in engineering decisions. The results showed that, generally, the GLO has a heavier tail. Our paper is the first to compare median extreme runout distances, the first to compare exceedance probability of extreme runout, and the first to analyze many probability distributions for a diverse set of datasets rigorously using five goodness-of-fit tests. Previous papers contained analysis mostly for the Gumbel distribution using only one goodness-of-fit test. Given that climate change is in effect, consideration of stationarity of the distributions is considered. Based on studies of climate change and avalanches, thus far, it has been suggested that stationarity should be a reasonable assumption for the extreme avalanche data considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".