MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1954175706 · doi:10.1139/t11-005

Reliability-based load and resistance factors for soil-nail walls

2011· article· en· W1954175706 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyracuse University
KeywordsSoil nailingLimit state designSafety factorContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Limit (mathematics)Resistance FactorsStructural engineeringEngineeringFactor of safetyGeotechnical engineeringRetaining wallReliability engineeringCivil engineeringMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing soil nailing design methodologies are essentially based on limit equilibrium principles that together with a lumped factor of safety or a set of partial factors on the material parameters and loads account for uncertainties in design input parameter values. Recent trends in the development of design procedures for earth retaining structures are towards load and resistance factor design (LRFD). In the present study, a methodology for the use of LRFD in the context of soil-nail walls is proposed and a procedure to determine reliability-based load and resistance factors is illustrated for important strength limit states with reference to a 10 m high soil-nail wall. The need for separate partial factors for each limit state is highlighted, and the proposed factors are compared with those existing in the literature.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.172 · 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