MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415692957 · doi:10.1061/9780784486498.023

Reducing the Extreme in Extreme Events by Knowing What Is Possible

2025· article· W4415692957 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Vessely, Scott Anderson, Zac Sala, Madeline Hille, B. A. Brown, Robert Group

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeohazardRockfallLandslideDebrisCulvertAsset (computer security)Debris flowNatural hazardRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge for an owner of assets with a finite investment capacity is knowing the location, type, and magnitude of threats that impact performance. To address this challenge, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) implemented a risk-based system to quantify all geohazard and geotechnical asset risks to traveler safety, traffic disruption, and ownership costs, and how risk can change with time. The outcome measures the annual risk exposure at 0.1-mi intervals for all magnitudes and types of geohazards, including cascading events like post-wildfire debris flows blocking culverts and disrupting traffic. The recent availability of statewide lidar enabled an automated lidar data screening process to create the statewide geotechnical asset and geohazard inventory. Subsequently, risk algorithms are applied for (1) rockfall from cut slopes and natural slopes, (2) debris flows, (3) embankments and steep downhill slopes, and (4) slow-moving landslides originating off right-of-way. The plan quantifies the risk exposure at approximately 6,000 channels with a debris flow potential, 12,500 embankments with an aggregated length of 1,200 mi, and 4,100 rock cuts with a total inventory length of 270 mi.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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→