MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404172857 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2023-0602

Flowslide on a fill slope triggered by a burst water pipe: a case history

2024· article· en· W4404172857 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Waiman Yan, Haifeng Zou, Steven J Williamson, Jeremy Weng Keong Ho, W. H. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a case study in Hong Kong of a flowslide occurred on a fill slope triggered by a burst water pipe buried near the slope crest. The onset of failure was recorded by nearby pedestrians and the video was immediately posted in social media, which had caught noticeable public attention. The flowslide resulted in a temporary closure of an undermined road section at the slope crest. The debris travelled over 500 m down the natural hillside within a country park. No casualties were reported. History of the site was studied. Information was collected to establish the chronological order of events happened before the flowslide. Post-landslide investigations including field mapping in the source area and along the debris trail, ground investigations, and a fluid-coupled numerical study were undertaken to examine the probable cause and mechanism of the failure. It is diagnosed that the high mobility of this landslide would be caused by the saturation of a loose fill layer in the slope due to water egress from the burst pipe, which in turn might have triggered a static liquefaction of the loose fill. Lessons learnt from this case history and measures to minimize similar landslide hazard on other fill slopes with similar settings are discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207