MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200025064 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2020-0774

On three-dimensional SPH modelling of large-scale landslides

2021· article· en· W4200025064 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chong Peng, Shuai Li, Wei Wu, Huicong An, Xiaoqing Chen, Chaojun Ouyang, Hui Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNazarbayev UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsLandslideDiscretizationAccelerationScale (ratio)Geotechnical engineeringConvergence (economics)GeologyMechanicsConstitutive equationField (mathematics)MathematicsFinite element methodPhysicsEngineeringClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lagrangian particle-based smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) is increasingly widely used in landslide modelling. This paper investigates four important issues not addressed by previous studies on SPH modelling of large-scale landslides, i.e., convergence property, influence of constitutive parameters, scale effect and friction reduction, and influence of different treatments of the viscous effect. The GPU-acceleration technique is employed to achieve high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) modelling. The Baige landslide is investigated by comparing numerical results with field data, and detailed analyses on the four issues are provided. Suggestions on particle resolution, constitutive parameter, and formulations of viscous discretization are also presented for future SPH modelling of large-scale landslides.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations62
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207