Modeling Erodibility of Cohesive Soils Based on Rotating Surface Erosion Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surface erosion, which removes the surficial soil grains from the streambeds, slopes, and earthen embankments, is one of the major causes of geohazards and engineering failures. At present, there is no acceptable model that directly predicts the erodibility of cohesive soils subjected to surface erosion. This study proposes a new surface erosion erodibility model for cohesive soils (i.e., sand–clay mixtures), established based on the experimental test results in a purpose-built rotating surface erosion apparatus (RSEA). The proposed model integrates the erosion processes of debonding, rolling, and transportation of soil particles. It enables the correlation of critical hydraulic shear stress to basic geotechnical soil properties and debonding strain energy determined from direct shear tests under zero normal stress. To validate the proposed model, an independent set of experiments was performed. It was found that the proposed erosion model could well predict the soil erosion rate and critical hydraulic shear stress as compared with the measured model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".