Evaluating shear mobilization in rockfill columns used for riverbank stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major rivers within the City of Winnipeg are founded in glacial Lake Agassiz clay and silt sediments that have low shear strength. As such, riverbank instabilities are a common issue along many stretches of the rivers. The use of rockfill columns has become an increasingly utilized approach for stabilizing failing banks. Recent cases in Winnipeg have shown that movements can occur following installation of rockfill columns. Uncertainty regarding the magnitude of these movements that is required to mobilize shearing resistance in the rockfill columns has resulted in situations where the stability of riverbanks following remediation has been questioned. This has provided a need to improve our understanding about how much movement a stabilized slope must undergo before sufficient shear resistance of the rockfill column will be mobilized. The results of experimental testing conducted to assess the shear mobilization of rockfill column materials using a large-scale direct shear test apparatus are presented in this paper. The testing methodology is described along with the test results. The results show that the development of material specifications, construction, and placement methods and appropriate methods of analysis requires understanding of the stress–strain properties of the in situ soil and the rockfill material.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".