MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213185407 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0036

Mechanism of failure of the Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility

2022· article· en· W4213185407 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Elena Zabolotnii, Norbert R. Morgenstern, G. Ward Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringFailure mechanismGeologyShear (geology)Shear zoneShear bandFailure mode and effects analysisDuctility (Earth science)TailingsDeformation (meteorology)LeveeShear stressMaterials sciencePetrologyComposite materialTectonicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 4 August 2014, a breach developed in a portion of the embankment at the Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility following foundation failure. This paper explores the mechanism of this progressive failure in view of pronounced three-dimensional stability effects identified in this slope. The findings of a three-dimensional deformation analysis of this failure are reported. The results demonstrate that its initiation can be explained in terms of minor strain-weakening within a thin shear band in the glaciolacustrine unit at the base of this slide, combined with the delayed mobilization of shear resistance in the shell zone owing to its relative ductility, along with the reduction in the levels of mobilized shear resistance in the upstream region of the slide resulting from a loss of confinement and (or) failure in extension caused by the translational displacements the base of the side. While recognizing the limitations of analyses alone, simulation suggests that strain localization in a shear band with a thickness not exceeding 12–13 cm is requisite for the initiation of this failure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207