MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097895289

www.elsevier.comrlocatercoldregions Snow cover properties for skier triggering of avalanches

2000· article· en· W7097895289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowSnow coverSlabCover (algebra)Fracture (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowpack characteristics for skier-triggered avalanches are described in order to better understand skier triggering, to improve snow profile observation and interpretation, to make suggestions for route selection and to provide a basis for further research. Our analysis is based on avalanche and snow profile data from skier-triggered avalanche sites in the Columbia Mountains of Canada and the Swiss Alps. Although these two mountain ranges have different climates, the characteristics for skier triggering are very similar. Whereas the snow cover in the profiles from the Columbia Mountains is Ž.more than twice as deep than in the ones from the Swiss Alps, the typical fracture depth or slab thickness is about the same Ž.45 cm. Failure layer properties are very similar indicating favourable conditions for skier triggering and slab release. In both ranges, the failure layers are predominantly persistent, that is, they consist of crystals of surface hoar, facets and depth hoar, which are slow to metamorphose. The analysis has focussed on slab properties and weak layer properties, and in particular, their interaction. The findings support the simple model of skier loading in which skiers directly initiate failures in

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.011

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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