MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130692405 · doi:10.1139/t99-123

Determination of passive earth pressure coefficients by the method of triangular slices

2000· article· en· W2130692405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dayong Zhu, Q.-H. Qian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateral earth pressureFunction (biology)Limit (mathematics)Series (stratigraphy)MathematicsMoment (physics)GeologyMathematical analysisMechanicsGeometryGeotechnical engineeringClassical mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new procedure is proposed for determination of passive earth pressure coefficients using triangular slices within the framework of the limit equilibrium method. The potential sliding mass is subdivided into a series of triangular slices, rather than vertical slices as usual, with inclinations of the slice bases to be determined. The forces between two adjacent slices (interslice forces) are expressed in terms of interslice force coefficients, and recursive equations for solving interslice coefficients are derived. By using the principle of optimality, the critical inclinations of slice bases, minimum interslice force coefficients, and passive earth pressure coefficients are determined. A form of function for describing the distribution of interslice force inclination (interslice force function) is suggested and the scaling parameter contained in the function is determined by satisfying the moment equilibrium condition for the final sliding mass. Comparisons are made with other accepted methods and tables for passive earth pressure coefficients are presented for practical use.Key words: passive earth pressure coefficient, retaining walls, limit equilibrium method, the principle of optimality.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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