MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727732337 · doi:10.1061/9780784480786.003

Comoe Dam Lateritic Foundation Treatment

2017· article· en· W2727732337 on OpenAlexaff
Anass Chraibi, A. Nombré

Bibliographic record

VenueGrouting 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsSemtech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyCushionAbutmentLeveeCompactionFoundation (evidence)BedrockEngineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comoé Dam in Burkina Faso is an embankment dam of 24 m maximum height above the riverbed and around 1170 m crest length. The dam foundations on the abutments are lateritic ground made of a superficial hard duricrust covering a lateritic carapace, soft to firm layer of 6 to 10 m thickness with canaliculus and cavities. The bedrock is made of highly weathered dolerite at the top, sound and watertight at depth. Since the first impoundment of the dam in 1991, uncontrolled seepage appeared at the downstream toe of the embankment on both abutments, particularly on the left bank. Seepage flow gradually increased with time. In 2010, the situation became critical with development of subsidence downstream in the left abutment. Remedial works launched in 2013 included a positive sheet piles cutoff of 40 m maximum depth, tubes-à-manchettes grouting and compaction grouting. Because of the political crisis and economic difficulties, works stopped before completion of compaction grouting and tubes-à-manchettes grouting on the left bank. Although remedial works have not been completed, already a significant reduction in seepage flow and pressures has been observed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrouting 2017Same topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207