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 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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