MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152056075 · doi:10.1139/t11-070

Diagnosis of embankment dam distresses using Bayesian networks. Part II. Diagnosis of a specific distressed dam

2011· article· en· W2152056075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. Xu, Limin Zhang, Jie Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkEmbankment damLeveeRemedial educationBayesian probabilityEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on prior information on common characteristics of dam distresses extracted from the dam distress database described in a companion paper, this paper attempts to extend the technique of Bayesian networks to the diagnosis of a specific distressed dam. The diagnosis is conducted by combining two sources of information, i.e., global-level knowledge from the database and project-specific evidence. Based on results of the diagnosis, key distress factors for a specific dam can be identified and suitable remedial measures can be suggested. Further, the Bayesian network analysis is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the adopted remedial measures. A case study on the diagnosis of a distressed embankment dam, Chenbihe Dam, with seepage problems is presented to illustrate the methodology. In this case study, the observed leakage rates, seepage exit locations, and boundary conditions of the embankment are used as project-specific evidence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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