MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411198950 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0176

Application of the Kenney–Lau stability index to quantify the post-erosion gradation of internally unstable soil

2025· article· en· W4411198950 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maoxin Li, R. J. Fannin, M. Foster, Li Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradationGeotechnical engineeringErosionGeologyWater erosionInternal erosionEnvironmental scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The well-established Kenney and Lau method is applied to estimate the post-erosion gradation of internally unstable broadly-graded soils after the finer particles are washed out. A novel semi-empirical relationship between the erosion fraction loss ( EF) and the stability index ( H/ F)min of the original soil gradation is developed to estimate the upper bound of erosion. This relationship is validated using data from 44 internal stability tests across seven independent studies. It is found that the erosion fraction loss ( EF) increases approximately linearly as ( H/ F)min decreases. The proposed framework offers a practical approach for quantifying post-erosion gradation of internally unstable soils at the stable state and can serve as a screening tool to evaluate the continuation of erosion through embankment dams and their foundations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→