Evaluation of toppling rock slopes using a composite cloud model with DEMATEL–CRITIC method
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
Safety evaluation of toppling rock slopes developing in reservoir areas is crucial. To reduce the uncertainty of safety evaluation, this study developed a composite cloud model, which improved the combination weights of the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and criteria importance through intercriteria correlation (CRITIC) methods. A safety evaluation system was developed according to in situ monitoring data. The backward cloud generator was used to calculate the numerical characteristics of a cloud model of quantitative indices, and different virtual clouds were used to synthesize some clouds into a generalized one. The synthesized numerical characteristics were calculated to comprehensively evaluate the safety of toppling rock slopes. A case study of a toppling rock slope near the Huangdeng Hydropower Station in China was conducted using monitoring data collected since operation of the hydropower project began. The results indicated that the toppling rock slope was moderately safe with a low safety margin. The composite cloud model considers the fuzziness and randomness of safety evaluation and enables interchange between qualitative and quantitative knowledge. This study provides a new theoretical method for evaluating the safety of toppling rock slopes. It can aid in the predication, control, and even prevention of disasters.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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