MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001950607 · doi:10.1139/t06-042

Limit analysis of submerged slopes subjected to water drawdown

2006· article· en· W2001950607 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDrawdown (hydrology)Geotechnical engineeringInstabilityLimit analysisGeologySlope stabilitySlope stability analysisGroundwaterMechanicsEngineeringStructural engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rapid draw of water from a reservoir can cause a temporary increase in the hydraulic gradient that may not be tolerated by the slope of an earth dam. The increased seepage forces may lead to slope instability, causing the collapse of the structure. The kinematic approach of limit analysis is used to examine stability of slopes subjected to a rapid or slow drawdown. Combinations of slope inclination, soil properties, and hydraulic conditions are found for which the slope becomes unstable. The results are presented in the form of charts for convenient practical use, and the safety factors can be obtained from the charts without the need for iteration. For granular slopes, particularly if shallow, subjected to drawdown, a simple translational mechanism with a shallow failure surface is not the most adverse mechanism for all water-draw regimes.Key words: slopes, stability, rapid drawdown, limit state analysis.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.166
Teacher spread0.163 · 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