Failure behaviour of bedrock and overburden landslides of the Peace River Valley near Fort St. John, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reach of Peace River between Fort St. John and Hudson’s Hope flows in a steepsided valley cut by meltwater and Holocene river flow through Cretaceous shale and sandstone covered by clay‐rich glaciolacustrine deposits. Numerous landslides occur on the banks, initiating in both the bedrock and overburden. Following a recently completed local landslide inventory and the completion of an airborne LiDAR survey, five landslides have been examined in detail: the Attachie Slide, the Moberly River Slide, the Halfway River Slide, the Cache Creek Slide and the Tea Creek Slide. Analysis of the five case studies suggests that most slope movements can be attributed to one of four dominant landslide failure mechanisms: compound rock slides, compound overburden slides, shallow rapid flow slides, and earth flows. Compound slides in bedrock and overburden are morphologically similar. Most have the character of compound slides, exploiting weak horizontal clay layers found at multiple levels in both materials. Typically, a sliding surface develops along a bedding plane presheared to residual friction and connects to a steep main scarp cross cutting the layers of rock and soil. Frequently this mechanism then repeats successively at multiple levels. The Cache Creek Slide and Tea Creek Slide are examples of compound slides in bedrock. The Moberly River Slide and the Attachie Slide are examples of compound slides in overburden. The toes of the slide deposits often assume the character of earth flow tongues which are intermittently removed by river erosion. Shallow rapid flow slides, such as the Halfway River Slide, are also common in the normally consolidated glaciolacustrine silts and clays of Glacial Lake Peace that overlie the study area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".