Reply to the discussion by Greco on “Seismic active earth pressure behind a nonvertical retaining wall using pseudo-dynamic analysis”Appears in Canadian Geotechnical Journal, <b>45</b>(12): 1795–1797.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am pleased to respond to the valuable comments provided by the discusser. I completely agree that the critical condition under an active case caused by the vertical earthquake force (Qv) generally occurs when the force acts in a vertically downward direction for lower values of the horizontal earthquake acceleration coefficient ah, whereas the reverse direction of Qv generally satisfies the critical condition for higher values of ah. Therefore, it is very true that the magnitude of Kae will be in line with the values provided by the discusser in Table 1 if the critical condition is considered. However, the objective of my paper was not to explore the critical condition but rather to study the application of the pseudo-dynamic approach to determine the seismic active thrust on a nonvertical cantilever retaining wall. The Mononobe–Okabe method (Kramer 1996) and the method of Choudhury and Nimbalkar (2006) considered Qv acting in a vertically upward direction to report the magnitude of Kae. Keeping this in view, the direction of Qv was considered the same in the analysis in my paper just to compare the existing values in the literature, and therefore a systematic search of the direction of Qv under the critical condition was beyond the scope of my study. However, it can be seen from Fig. 1 in the discussion that for lower values of ah the difference in magnitude of Kae values obtained with different directions of Qv is not significant. References
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.046 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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".