The effect of seasonal variations in the Red River and upper carbonate aquifer on riverbank stability in Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A transient Finite Element seepage model has been developed which incorporates a confined aquifer, river, and groundwater within a lacustrine riverbank. The transient seepage modeling is performed over a period when the piezometric elevations of the unconfined aquifer are increasing and river levels are decreasing. The transient groundwater regime computed, within an idealized riverbank section, are similar to those observed through piezometer monitoring of a site on which the model is based. The seepage results are then incorporated into slope stability analysis and the influence of seasonal fluctuations in piezometric elevation of the aquifer and river are examined. Parallel slope stability analysis is also performed using assumed static groundwater elevations. The results of the slope stability modeling of the two different methods of determining piezometric elevations within a riverbank are compared and contrasted using a range of effective shear strength parameters from c' = 3 kPa, [straight phi] ' = 8 to c' = 5 kPa, [straight phi] ' = 17. Safety factors computed using FEM generated porewater pressures are typically higher than those using assumed static groundwater levels for a given set of effective shear strength parameters. However, the reduction in safety factor over the modeling duration is greater when using FEM porewater pressures compared to assumed groundwater levels. The difference in computed safety factors is attributed to the transient model incorporating the combined destabilizing influence of the recharging unconfined aquifer and decreasing river levels (FE computed piezometric elevations) compared with only the destabilizing influence of decreased river level (assumed groundwater elevations) in the static analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".