MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392506338 · doi:10.1061/9780784485330.014

A Heuristic Search Method for Critical Slip Surfaces with Weak Layers

2024· article· en· W4392506338 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Chen, Terence Ma, Brigid Cami, Sina Javankhoshdel, Brent Corkum

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsRocscience (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicAlgorithmMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In slope stability, weak layers are thin layers of low-strength materials which can potentially form part of the critical sliding surface. The search for the critical slip surface in slope stability is a complicated optimization problem that minimizes the factor of safety by altering the parameters corresponding to the geometry of a slip surface. While searching for the critical slip surface, it is important to fully consider the weak layers in a model. Traditionally, slope stability programs have handled weak layers by clipping the slip surfaces, which are generated during the automatic searching stage, to the weak layers. If multiple weak layers touch a slip surface, there are multiple permutations of clippings that can be performed on the slip surface by the weak layers using any, all, or none of those weak layers. As such, it can become very difficult to identify which combination of the weak layers would produce the lowest factor of safety. In this paper, a new method is proposed which efficiently considers the contribution of each weak layer via an additional optimization parameter. The proposed approach is demonstrated via an example and is shown to be relatively faster in speed against leading industry methods, while maintaining comparable accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207