MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284893012 · doi:10.1080/13632469.2022.2091686

A Study on the Seismic Passive Earth Pressure on Rigid Retaining Walls Considering Seismic Acceleration Field

2022· article· en· W4284893012 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earthquake Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationLateral earth pressureGeologyField (mathematics)Structural engineeringEarth (classical element)Geotechnical engineeringSeismic loadingSeismic analysisSeismologyEngineeringPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seismic passive earth pressure is typically calculated by a pseudo static analysis by the PGA on the ground surface which is often assumed to be constant within the soil mass. This may result in an underestimation of the limit load. On the other hand, variations of the acceleration field over time and space render the interpretation of the seismic limit load either very difficult, if a complete elasto-plastic solution is sought at each time step, or argumentative. A rather new procedure is presented in this study which considers the variable seismic acceleration field behind a rigid retaining wall during an earthquake and applied to a series of acceleration time histories. The method of stress characteristics is implemented to estimate the limit load at each time step. This method seems to be more convenient with a clear interpretation of the actual limit load. Results indicated that the conventional pseudo static analyses provide an over-conservative estimate or an underestimation of the passive earth pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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