Comparison of Rating Systems for Alberta Rock Slopes, and Assessment of Applicability for Geotechnical Asset Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors (TEC) implemented the Geohazard Risk Management Program (GRMP) to identify, assess, monitor, and prioritize the mitigation of risk resulting from geohazard events at specific sites along the provincial highway network. The GRMP was developed to address a variety of geohazard types including rockfall hazards that occur at natural and constructed (cut) highway backslopes. An evaluation of various methods for the condition assessment of rockfall geohazards, including TEC’s current GRMP risk rating system, has been completed with the intent of better understanding the suitability of each method as TEC transitions to a formalized GAM program. The GRMP risk rating values for selected rockfall geohazard sites along highway corridors in Alberta were compared to values developed from the results of five established rock mass and rock slope rating systems. The results of this study demonstrate that TEC’s current GRMP risk rating system is a viable tool for the condition assessment and performance monitoring of rockfall geohazards, which could be utilized within a formalized GAM program, further benefitting from years of recorded application in Alberta. Of the other rating systems tested, the rockfall hazard rating system (RHRS) showed a strong correlation with the GRMP risk rating while Q-Slope, the Geological Strength Index (GSI) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) correlation were marginal but displayed a potential for use as condition assessment tools. The work presented in this paper provides the first evaluation of rock slope rating systems for rockfall hazards along corridors in Alberta, directly comparing them to the slope performance as observed by TEC in a quantitative manner.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".