MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101232787 · doi:10.1139/t08-094

A transfer coefficient method for rock slope toppling

2009· article· en· W2101232787 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chufan Liu, Mark B. Jaksa, A.G. Meyers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsClassification of discontinuitiesGeologyBlock (permutation group theory)Geotechnical engineeringPosition (finance)KinematicsStability (learning theory)CrestSlope stabilityMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common block toppling mode is adopted for analysing toppling stability of rock slopes. A transfer coefficient method is developed based on Goodman and Bray’s kinematic model, by introducing two parameters: the transfer coefficient and equivalent toppling weight, which, given the geometrical and geotechnical parameters of the slope, can be determined as functions of the relative position of the block to the slope crest. Accounting for the case that the block base is not normal to the dominant discontinuities, the arithmetic is extended. The method describes a concise relationship between the normal force of the blocks and their weight represented by their equivalent toppling weight. The analysis process is formulated and easily implemented. A spreadsheet procedure is presented and a typical case is illustrated. It is demonstrated that the transfer coefficient method provides a considerably straightforward means for analysing block toppling of rock slopes and is computationally very efficient.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207