MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980528154 · doi:10.1002/eqe.542

Seismic behaviour of cracked concrete gravity dams

2005· article· en· W1980528154 on OpenAlex
O. A. Pekau, Xueye Zhu

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity damStructural engineeringDisplacement (psychology)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringResidualFinite element methodEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A finite element model of incremental displacement constraint equations (IDCE), based on an existing node‐to‐surface concept, is implemented to deal with dynamic contact surfaces in the seismic behaviour analysis of cracked concrete gravity dams. After verification for sliding, rocking and impact, the IDCE model is applied to study the seismic responses of concrete gravity dams with different profiles and crack locations for a variety of parameters, such as coefficient of friction, water level and type of earthquake, as well as impact damping based on the concept of coefficient of restitution. It is revealed that cracked concrete gravity dams can experience not only sliding and rocking modes, but also the drifting mode in some cases of crack either at the base or at a height. Downstream sliding is normally accompanied by rocking, especially for the cases of crack at a height. Due to rocking and drifting, a cracked dam may still acquire a certain amount of residual sliding even if the effective coefficient of friction is relatively high. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.191 · 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