MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060083799 · doi:10.1680/geolett.14.00055

On the use of empirical methods for assessment of filters in embankment dams

2014· article· en· W2060083799 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Rönnqvist, Jonathan Fannin, Peter Viklander

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUppsala UniversitetKungliga Tekniska HögskolanChalmers Tekniska Högskola
KeywordsGradationInternal erosionLeveeGeotechnical engineeringPlot (graphics)ErosionFilter (signal processing)InstabilityGeotextileGeologyEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A database of 80 embankment dams has been compiled that includes 23 dams that are reported to have experienced some form of internal erosion. An assessment is made of the potential for seepage-induced internal instability of the filter zone in all dams, using five empirical criteria for shape analysis of the grain size distribution curve. Similarly, an assessment is made of the likelihood of core–filter incompatibility in all of the dams, using an empirical criterion for excessive erosion. These two attributes of a filter gradation, namely its potential for internal instability and its capacity for soil retention, are combined in a unified plot. Evaluation of the database reveals a correlation between the attributes of a filter gradation and deficiencies that are attributed to internal erosion. The finding implies the unified plot may serve as a preliminary screening tool in engineering practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechnique LettersSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207