MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083360834 · doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2014.05.003

Effect of graph generation on slope stability analysis based on graph theory

2014· article· en· W2083360834 on OpenAlexaff
Enpu Li, Xiaoying Zhuang, Wenbo Zheng, Yongchang Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCentral South UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSlope stabilitySlope stability analysisSlip (aerodynamics)Safety factorStrength reductionBenchmark (surveying)GraphStability (learning theory)MathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limit equilibrium method (LEM) and strength reduction method (SRM) are the most widely used methods for slope stability analysis. However, it can be noted that they both have some limitations in practical application. In the LEM, the constitutive model cannot be considered and many assumptions are needed between slices of soil/rock. The SRM requires iterative calculations and does not give the slip surface directly. A method for slope stability analysis based on the graph theory is recently developed to directly calculate the minimum safety factor and potential critical slip surface according to the stress results of numerical simulation. The method is based on current stress state and can overcome the disadvantages mentioned above in the two traditional methods. The influences of edge generation and mesh geometry on the position of slip surface and the safety factor of slope are studied, in which a new method for edge generation is proposed, and reasonable mesh size is suggested. The results of benchmark examples and a rock slope show good accuracy and efficiency of the presented method.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207