Hazard mapping for the eastern face of Turtle Mountain, adjacent to the Frank Slide, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the occurrence of the Frank Slide in 1903, studies have identified potentially unstable volumes on Turtle Mountain adjacent to the original slide source. In the 1930's, a mass of 5 million m3, known as South Peak, was identified as the most unstable. Limited monitoring was carried out for close to 70 years. The monitoring system was upgraded at the turn of the millennium, as part of a comprehensive risk management program, concerning identified elements at risk in the valley. Intensive monitoring has now been carried out for 6 years and an early warning system implemented. With the acquisition of airborne LiDAR in 2005, a computer based structural mapping tool, COLTOP, was applied to better understand the structural controls on the Frank Slide, South Peak and other portions of the eastern face of Turtle Mountain. Recent studies by Jaboyedoff et al (2009), Froese et al. (In Press) and Pedrazzini et al. (2008) have highlighted structural controls on instabilities on the eastern face of the mountain that differ from those previously known for both the South Peak and for another portion of the mountain, Third Peak, which had not been identified in previous studies. The computer based structural models were confirmed with field structural mapping and a Sloping Local Base Level (SLBL) technique was used to estimate scenarios implying different volumes of potential future instabilities. To understand the level of activity of these volumes, an expanded monitoring network was installed in 2007 and 2008. It is expected that these portions of the mountain are moving at a very slow rate (sub-millimeter to millimeter per year) and conclusive evidence as to the level of activity may take years to ascertain. In order to better understand the extent of the potential impact of the hazards posed by these various unstable volumes (scenarios), dynamic runout analyses have been undertaken. A three-dimensional dynamic model has been calibrated using the experience from the Frank Slide and other regional rock avalanches and applied to the volumes derived from the SLBL to better define areas that are potentially susceptible to impact from landslides below the eastern face of Turtle Mountain. The results will be used to improve contingency plans within the hazard 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 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".