Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strength of rock mass and the stress in a slope are each complex fields of investigation. They are also intimately related as increasing confining stress makes a rock mass stronger and the strength of a rock mass can limit the magnitude of stress. Whereas these interactions are comparatively well understood for soils, principally through the advances of laboratory soil mechanics, the scale of rock masses, principally the presence of discontinuity surfaces, limits the capacity for laboratory investigation. The interaction of strength and stress in rock slopes is most evident in high, steep slopes where stress is typically greater. The slope angle and failure mechanisms occurring in the rock slope can reveal the ways that strength and stress interact to produce the observed morphology. McKay Bluff, near Nelson, South Island, New Zealand, is a high, steep rock slope affected by marine coastal erosion at its base. Finite element modeling illustrates sensitivities in determination of the stress magnitude in the slope. Engineering geology methods demonstrate the difficulty in precise determination of the rock mass strength. The ranges of these parameters are compared to find a compatible range for the interacting factors. The stress in a range of other high, steep slope types is reviewed and the implications for geomorphic analysis are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".