Évaluation du facteur de qualité sismique au barrage de Carillon (Québec)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seismic attenuation in concrete has seldom been studied, although it is an important parameter for survey design. In this paper, the seismic Q factor is estimated from data measured at the Carillon dam. Three methods were used for this study: amplitude decay yielding a value of 5.1 ± 1.6, spectral ratio giving a value of 8.3 ± 3.5, and a value of 7.5 ± 14.9 was obtained from the rise-time technique. These values are weak compared with what is generally observed in rocks, and slightly lower than values obtained on laboratory concrete samples. However, the average P wave velocity measured on the investigated area is 4081 ± 95 m·s1, an indication of the good quality of the material. Consequently, this strong attenuation could be attributed on one hand to energy loss, and on the other hand to scattering caused by the intrinsic cementaggregate composition of concrete. It is also possible that an inadequate sensor coupling had the effect of reducing the observed Q value. Key words: seismic attenuation, concrete dams, microseismic monitoring, coupling.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".