MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554652312 · doi:10.14346/jkosos.2016.31.4.64

Numerical Study on Earthquake Performance of Gravity Dam Considering Earthquake Frequencies

2016· article· en· W2554652312 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Young-Suk Chai, In‐Ki Min

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Korean Society of Safety · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravity damEarthquake simulationGeologySeismic microzonationIncremental Dynamic AnalysisSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringEarthquake resistanceSeismic analysisStructural engineeringEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the seismic stability evaluation of concrete gravity dams is raised due to the failure of dams occurred by the Izmit, Turkey and JiJi, Taiwan earthquake in 1999. Dams failure may incur loss of life and properties around the dam as well as damage to dam structure itself. Recently, there has been growing much concerns about "earthquake - resistance" or "seismic safety" of existing concrete gravity dams designed before current seismic design provisions were implemented. This research develops three evaluation levels for seismic stability of concrete gravity dams on the basis of the evaluation method of seismic stability of concrete gravity dams in U.S.A., Japan, Canada, and etc. Level 1 is a preliminary evaluation which is for purpose of screening. Level 2 is a pseudo-static evaluation on the basis of the seismic intensity method. And level 3 is a detail evaluation by the dynamic analysis. Evaluation results on existing concrete gravity dams on operation showed good seismic performance under designed artificial earthquake(KHC earthquake).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Korean Society of SafetySame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207