MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315646255 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0159

Empirical relationships for estimating the crest settlement of earth-core rockfill dams subjected to earthquakes

2023· article· en· W4315646255 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Arman Ghaemi, Jean‐Marie Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)CrestGeologyGeotechnical engineeringHuman settlementGround motionStrong ground motionSeismologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, new empirical predictive relationships for earthquake-induced crest settlement of earth-core rockfill dams (ECRDs) were developed. A case history database of 19 dams that had been subjected to earthquakes was utilized. The presented relationships correlate the intensity measure (IM) of the earthquake records with the observed settlements, and thus, employing IMs that appropriately describe the severity of ground motion is of vital importance. It is well known that the dynamic properties of an ECRD can change significantly depending on the severity of an earthquake, and that this phenomenon can substantially impact the dynamic responses of dams. Accordingly, two IMs were suggested, taking into account the essential characteristics of ground motions affecting the nonlinear behaviour of ECRDs. The results indicate that the proposed relationships effectively address the limitations of the existing ones, and that they are practical tools that efficiently predict the seismic settlements of ECRDs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207