Discussion of “Stability assessment of slopes with cracks using limit analysis”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discusser has recently published a paper in Geotechnique titled “Investigation by limit analysis on the stability of slopes with cracks” (Utili 2013) that includes, for the first time (to the discusser’s knowledge), a systematic investigation of the influence of the presence of cracks in uniform slopes for rotational failure mechanisms via the limit analysis upper bound approach. Looking at the discusser’s paper and the paper under discussion (Michalowski 2013), a reader may note that the aim of the two papers is the same, namely, to assess quantitatively the effect of the presence of cracks on the stability of slopes employing the upper bound approach of limit analysis. The discusser’s paper was sent to Geotechnique when the discusser had no knowledge of either the author’s conference paper (Michalowski 2012) or of the paper under discussion published in July 2013. On the other hand, the discusser’s paper was published after the publication of the author’s conference paper (Michalowski 2012). Hence, it can be concluded that the discusser and the author had independently developed an original formulation for the calculation of upper bounds based on rotational failure mechanisms for cracked uniform slopes at similar times.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".