Felsbauplanung mit dem geotechnischen Werkzeugkasten von morgen: Perspektiven der Entwicklung der dritten Generation des Eurocodes 2035
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current Eurocode revision process is sought to improve Eurocode 7 for application to rock engineering, while including only techniques and procedures that are in widespread customary use. The revision process has exposed much about the application of the Eurocodes to rock engineering, thereby offering hints as to what material should be included in the next revision – tentatively suggested for publication in 2035. Crucially, ideas have developed about how rock engineering practice may need to develop to embrace the principles on which the Eurocodes are based. In particular, aspects of determining the properties of rock masses, and design verification by observational methods, partial factors, numerical modelling, and prescriptive rules are all thought to require significant improvement or dramatic modification. This paper highlights challenges identified regarding the application of the Eurocodes to rock engineering, and which will need to be addressed in the future. Ideas are presented about how these challenges may be overcome, but these are given in the spirit of stimulating ongoing conversation within the rock mechanics and rock engineering community rather than presenting definite proposals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".