Riverbank stability in loose layered silty clays : Comments on the North Spur Dam at Muskrat Falls in Churchill River, Labrador, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differences are outlined in landslide analysis between the classic limit equilibrium method with assumed plastic properties of the soil and a progressive analysis applying softening material properties. The risk for failure is studied in the dam at the North Spur riverbank ridge at Muskrat Falls in Churchill River in Labrador, Newfoundland, Canada. A sloping failure surface is much more critical than the horizontal surfaces which have hitherto been studied. Results from new analyses have now been obtained applying softening material properties probable for the ridge. The results indicate safety factors lower than 0.5, i.e. there is a high risk that the ridge will fail if the water level is raised to the proposed level. Three reports are appended where Stig Bernander argues in detail for the need for a proper progressive failure analysis based on measured material properties. He also proposes how such properties may be obtained and gives an example of a way to stabilize the ridge if the soil properties show a softening behaviour. Finally examples of progressive failure analyses are included using probable material properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".