Slope Stability and Erosion Control: Ecotechnological Solutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is designed to assist the civil and geotechnical engineer, geomorphologist, forester, landscape architect or ecologist in choosing ecotechnological solutions for slopes that are prone to a variety of mass movements e.g. shallow failure or erosion. Within this book, the 'engineer' is used in the global sense to encompass all planners, designers, etc who are involved in the stabilisation of slopes. We review the types of problematic slopes that may occur and describe briefly the nature of mass movements and the causes of these movements. In this book, we focus on the use of vegetation to stabilize soil on slopes prone to mass movements. Before a plant can be chosen for a particular function, its physical and hydrological properties must be determined, thus the root architecture of grasses, shrubs and trees are described and the soil hydrological and mechanical factors which influence vegetation are discussed. Depending on the use of the slope, the engineer may wish to ascertain either the stability of the slope or the mechanical stability of the vegetation or both, therefore slope stability analysis methods are reviewed and the contribution the vegetation has to the stability of the slope are explained. Models to assess the mechanical stability of vegetation are reviewed. This book also introduces new ecotechnological methods for stabilising active rockfalls on steep slopes and slopes that are prone to soil erosion following wild fires, as well as providing user friendly information on traditional ground bio-engineering techniques and tables of plants suitable for different functions. Case studies where ground bio- and eco-engineering measures have been put into practice are also discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it