Bibliographic record
Abstract
B.C. Hydro performed extensive seismic safety studies for Duncan Dam in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The results of these studies indicated that Duncan Dam was reasonably safe from liquefaction-induced failure. A recently proposed liquefaction analysis procedure that uses strength ratios to assess liquefaction triggering and post-triggering stability was used to revisit the liquefaction analysis of Duncan Dam. When compared to the detailed field and analytical studies performed by B.C. Hydro, the proposed liquefaction analysis procedure predicts: (i) similar zones of liquefaction within a contractive unit of foundation sand; (ii) similar shear strengths at the triggering of liquefaction (yield shear strength) and at large strain (liquefied shear strength); and (iii) similar post-triggering factors of safety for slope stability. The good agreement suggests that the strength ratio based liquefaction analysis approach is relatively robust and is suitable for screening level studies for large projects or may serve as the primary analysis procedure for less complex projects.Key words: liquefaction, liquefied shear strength, yield shear strength, laboratory tests, penetration tests, Duncan Dam.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".