Évaluation des conséquences de rupture d'un barrage : calculs détaillés ou méthode simplifiée ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quebec's Dam Safety Act demands a safety assessment for all dams, whatever their capacity. The capacity only affects the detail level of the study to qualify the consequences of a potential dam failure, and thus determine the dam's classification. In practical terms, it is difficult to qualify the consequences of a failure flood if a complete hydraulic calculation of the failure flood is not performed. If consequences are not significant, this complicated specialized work can be deemed unnecessary by the dam owner, who normally has to defray the cost. This paper compares results of a complete dynamic calculation to those of three "simplified" methods. It shows, in two specific cases, that flow depth errors are significant, even after eliminating the greater part of this error generated by the discharge evaluation at the breach. The paper also shows that work involved when using "simplified" methods is not significantly decreased with relation to the work required for the complete calculation when time comes to interpret the data to assess correctly the consequences of a possible dam failure.Key words: dam, rupture, consequences, simplified assessment, complete calculation.[Journal translation]
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".