MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408058725 · doi:10.1016/j.jinse.2025.02.001

Discrete fracture network application to rock slope engineering

2025· article· en· W4408058725 on OpenAlexafffund
Elvis Karikari Mensah, R.E. Hammah, Hassan Basahel, Hani S. Mitri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of industrial safety. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsRocscience (Canada)McGill University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsGeologyFracture (geology)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stability of rock slopes is a critical concern in rock engineering applications due to the potential safety hazards and economic repercussions associated with slope failures. Currently, slope stability analysis relies on various analytical and numerical modeling tools leading to a factor of safety. Parameters such as joint strength are assessed through probabilistic analysis. Despite the established effectiveness of these methods, they often lack the capability to provide a volumetric estimation of the failure zone, primarily because the joint frequency parameter is not considered. By incorporating this parameter, it becomes feasible to construct a three-dimensional discrete fracture network (DFN), which offers a more comprehensive representation of the rock slope structure. This study aims to validate the use of DFN in civil engineering applications using two road-cut case studies from Saudi Arabia. Both case studies are analyzed with the conventional methods and DFN approaches, allowing for a comparative assessment of results. DFN models optimize the utilization of statistical data related to discontinuity persistence and spacing, enabling the construction of both deterministic and stochastic fracture networks. The effects of joint spacing and persistence on the factor of safety and volume of failure are examined. Finally, the advantages and limitations of the DFN on rock slope stability are highlighted and areas for improvement and optimization 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of industrial safety.Same topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207