MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134901683 · doi:10.1139/t08-103

Modelling the erosion rate of chemically stabilized soil incorporating tensile force – deformation characteristics

2009· article· en· W2134901683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Buddhima Indraratna, Thevaragavan Muttuvel, Hadi Khabbaz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringUltimate tensile strengthErosionLeveeMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Shear (geology)Environmental scienceGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the safety of embankment dams, it is necessary to estimate the erosion rate based on common geotechnical properties such as shear and tensile strength. However, the empirical expressions that are currently available in the literature for this purpose are often inadequate. In this paper, an analytical model is developed to model the erosion of a soil capturing its tensile behaviour based on the law of energy conservation. The erosion rate can be determined using the proposed model if the tensile force – deformation characteristics, dry density, mean particle diameter, and mean flow velocity are known. The proposed model is semi-empirical and can be validated with experimental results obtained from the novel process simulation apparatus for internal crack erosion (PSAICE) designed and built at the University of Wollongong, Australia. All tests were conducted on erodible silty sand stabilized with cement and lignosulfonate. The model validation clearly indicates that only a fraction of the energy (efficiency index) from the water stream is effectively used for erosion.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207