Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geosynthetics are commonly considered to provide restoring forces against sliding during overall slope stability analyses. Where a slipping surface intersects a geosynthetic layer, the geosynthetic layer produces a reaction force either in the opposite direction of sliding, in the direction of the geosynthetic alignment, or in some intermediate direction. The provision of geosynthetic reinforcements typically increases the factor of safety in limit equilibrium against overall sliding in the design of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall, and for this reason has become popular among practitioners. However, geosynthetics are typically installed in contiguous layers. These layers are potential interfaces for sliding which need to be checked with respect to slope stability. In other words, it is possible for a slope to become unstable via partial sliding along the interface of a geosynthetic. In this paper, a comprehensive method of analysis is demonstrated via an example which evaluates the stability of a slope reinforced by geosynthetics. All the cases of failure with respect to slope stability are considered via the dual treatment of the geosynthetic elements as weak layers and supporting elements in a limit equilibrium analysis in software.
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 | 0.000 | 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".