Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Very slow movements of rock may occur for long periods prior of catastrophic landslides. A classic example of such event is the 1903 rockslide at Turtle Mountain in southwest Alberta, Canada, where some 30 million m3 covered an area of 3 km2, burying the south end of the town of Frank. The slide left two prominent peaks on Turtle Mountain, denoted as the North Peak and South Peak, and a saddle in between. Many studies over the past century have concluded the South Peak of the Turtle Mountain still poses danger to the surrounding community. In order to prevent the risk associated with a second rock avalanche, the Government of Alberta initiated a two-year multi-disciplinary monitoring project. The Turtle Mountain Monitoring Project involved the implementation of a predictive monitoring system comprising microseismic, displacement, pore pressure, temperature, and other monitoring instruments operating in near-real time. In this paper, we present the result of 2 years of observations of the rock mass and a discussion of the slope displacement behaviour to date. Instrumentation located across major cracks on the west side of South Peak have recorded movements less than 1 mm/year. These movements appears to be driven by the annual thermal cycle experienced by the rock slope, with most of the displacements occurring from September to early May, when air temperature is generally cooler. Conversely, periods of prolonged warm air temperatures, typically during late May to July, can be associated with cessation of displacements. The observed displacement behaviour provides some insight as to the style and rate of movements of South Peak and indicate that South Peak has had a long history of very slow deformation. These movements are of interest but below levels of concern for the stability of the slope, considering the large extensions that have obviously occurred during crack formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.354 | 0.376 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".