Instability of flood embankments due to pore-water pressure build-up at the toe: lesson learned from the Adige River case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A case study is presented of the Adige River embankment, a segment of which experienced instability of the landside slope due to the development of uplift pressures. Soil profile and hydromechanical properties of the embankment and foundation materials have been assessed via site investigation, laboratory testing, and field monitoring for two cross sections, within and outside the failure segment. The hydromechanical model developed thereof was first validated against its ability to reproduce the probability of failure for the two sections with a first-order, second-moment (FOSM)-based approach. Comparison of water flow regimes between the two sections was then used to highlight the importance of the hydraulic properties of the material on the landside for the development of uplift pressures at the toe of the embankment. The lesson learnt from this case study is that the hydraulic response of the ground on the landside may play a critical role on the stability of flood embankments and its characterization should therefore not be overlooked when planning site investigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".