A method to determine relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the methods used for evaluating the potential hydraulic erodibility of rock, the most common methods are those based on the correlation between the force of flowing water and the capacity of a rock to resist erosion, such as Annandale's and Pells' methods. The capacity of a rock to resist erosion is evaluated based on erodibility indices that are determined from specific geomechanical parameters of a rock mass. These indices include unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of rock, rock block size, joint shear strength, a block's shape and orientation relative to the direction of flow, joint openings, and the nature of the surface to be potentially eroded. However, it is difficult to determine the relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock. The assessment of eroded unlined spillways of dams has shown that the capacity of a rock to resist erosion is not accurately evaluated. Using more than 100 case studies, we develop a method to determine the relevant geomechanical parameters for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock in unlined spillways. The UCS of rock is found not to be a relevant parameter for evaluating the hydraulic erodibility of rock. On the other hand, we find that the use of three-dimensional (3D) block volume measurements, instead of the block size factor used in Annandale's method, improves the rock block size estimation. Furthermore, the parameter representing the effect of a rock block's shape and orientation relative to the direction of flow, as considered in Pells' method, is more accurate than the parameter adopted by Annandale's method.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it