Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of the 1959 landslide at Furre, Norway, had given an effective friction angle φ' of 7°, whereas large-scale in-situ shear box tests were interpreted to yield an angle of 9°. Triaxial tests had given values of φ' in the range 21–25°. It was concluded at the 1967 Oslo conference that the slide mechanism at work was that of retrogressive sliding, i.e. the slide went out piece by piece rather than moving out as a single flake. In the present paper it is postulated that the extremely low friction angles are not the real friction angles. The various failures, whether in the field or in the laboratory, whether drained or undrained and whether in the direction of initial shear or in the opposite direction, all occur when the real friction is fully mobilized along some plane in the failing clay. At this stage, if it is not physically possible for failure to take place along such a plane, i.e. if conventional sliding failure is hindered by boundary restraints, the clay will display a discontinuity appearing as a relatively sharp reduction of the gradient of the stress-strain curve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".