MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121064915 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0279

Effects of geometries on three-dimensional slope stability

2013· article· en· W2121064915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yingbin Zhang, Guangqi Chen, Lu Zheng, Yange Li, Xiaoying Zhuang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringLandslideSlip (aerodynamics)Slope stabilitySlope stability analysisStrength reductionGeologyFactor of safetySafety factorSlippageBoundary value problemExcavationGeometryStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsFinite element methodMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the effects of complex geometries on three-dimensional (3D) slope stability using an elastoplastic finite difference method (FDM) with a strength reduction technique. A series of special 3D slopes with various geometric configurations, including curving slope surface, turning corners, turning arcs, and turning forms, is presented in terms of factor of safety, shear slip surface, and deformed mesh. More than 180 cases with various geometries for different slope gradient (90°, 45°, and 26.57°) under different boundary conditions (smooth–smooth, rough–smooth, and rough–rough) are calculated and discussed in detail. Many interesting results are obtained and some of them appear to be surprising. These results can be used directly to offer suggestions for landslide hazard preparedness or safe and economical design of infrastructures, e.g., excavations, embankments, and so on.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations135
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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