MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412990140 · doi:10.56952/arma-2025-0618

Temporal Rockfall Forecasting Using Thermal Imaging and Meteorological Data

2025· article· en· W4412990140 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Ortmann, James J. Potter, J.C. McNabb, Alma Reasoner, Barbara J. Meyer, J.A. Restrepo, Arthur Bidwell, Leonard D. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBow Valley College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRockfallRemote sensingComputer scienceMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceGeologySeismologyLandslideGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Rockfall poses serious hazards to safety and infrastructure along both excavated and natural rock slopes. Significant progress has been made in forecasting time-to-failure for large-scale, progressive slope failures using full-spatial, real-time monitoring techniques. However, small-scale, brittle rockfall events typically occur with little to no detectable precursory movement, highlighting the value of identifying and characterizing the triggers for these events as a potential predictive approach. There is broad consensus within the geotechnical community that meteorological factors, such as heavy/cumulative rainfall and freeze/thaw, contribute to rockfall occurrence. However, quantitative documentation of these relationships has been limited by the lack of real-time rockfall monitoring. Quantifying the relationship between meteorological forces and rockfall events could be a critical first step towards higher confidence predictions of rockfall occurrence to support risk management. The University of Arizona's Geotechnical Center of Excellence has collected a unique dataset of observed rockfall events captured using thermal video from two mine sites in North America. These events were identified and evaluated alongside the concurrent meteorological data. Here, we present the results of preliminary predictive rockfall models developed for one of the two study sites with the goal of improving on-site safety and reducing economic losses from rockfall-related work interruptions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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