Procedures from International Guidelines for Assessing Seismic Risk to Flood‐Control Levees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We synthesize engineering procedures for estimating the seismic performance of major flood‐control levees as given in guidelines documents and design codes from Canada (British Columbia), China, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States. Some guidelines carry the weight of law whereas compliance is optional for others. Most procedures combine a probabilistic ground motion characterization with deterministic assessments of levee performance (uncoupled approach). Ground motions are typically described using peak accelerations for reference site conditions at return periods typically ranging from 100 to 2,475 years. Those motions are deterministically modified for soil conditions using numerical simulations or ergodic site factors. Accompanying hydrological conditions are either not specified or are taken at a frequently encountered water level (ranging from mean annual to a four‐month flood event). These demands are used in combination with various soil properties to assess the potential for liquefaction, flow failure, and permanent shear deformations. Drawing upon best practices identified from this review, we recommend procedures for levee risk assessment at the section‐level and for levee systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".