Evaluating the behaviour of instrumented prototype rockfill dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the behaviour of prototype rockfill dams under turbulent flow conditions to identify the flow-through characteristics of rockfill materials and examines conventional design principles. Two scales of prototype rockfill dams were studied. The first type of prototype tests included fifteen 0.5 m tall dams constructed with three different downstream slope angles. The dams were monitored for upstream and downstream water level, discharge rate, particle movement on the downstream face, and any noticeable failure (local or global) during the experiments. The second set of prototype tests included two 1.2 m tall dams constructed to study the internal hydraulic conditions and required a flow environment to initiate particle movements in rockfill structures. The results from the testing of small-dimension dams (mini-dams) provided understanding for developing the methodologies to optimize the design and construction of the scale-dam tests. The hydraulic performances of the scale-dams are presented using vibrating-wire piezometers measurements. Experimental data of the stage–discharge relationship are compared with predictive models, which show strong correlations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".