MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417009589 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0734

Simplified seepage rate estimation of zoned embankment dams

2025· article· en· W4417009589 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong-Hoon Shin, DongSoon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbankment damLeveeFoundation (evidence)Permeability (electromagnetism)Pore water pressureDam failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seepage rate is a crucial parameter in embankment dam safety management, informing early warning systems and risk-based decision-making. However, under- or over-estimating seepage quantity during design-stage, often due to simplified 2D modeling, leads to discrepancies between predicted and measured values. This study proposes a modified method for estimating seepage rates in zoned embankment dams, improving upon Yang et al. A closed-form solution is also newly derived by addressing the limitation of previous study. The approach enables realistic prediction of partitioned seepage rates within the core layer and separately accounts for seepage contributions from the foundation and abutments. The accuracy of the method was verified through comparison with extensive measured seepage data from a well-monitored central cored rockfill dam. The close agreement between estimated and observed values supports the applicability of this modified method for establishing reliable seepage management criteria in embankment dams. The findings highlight that seepage through the foundation typically surpasses that through the core, attributable to differences in permeability characteristics. The ability to predict seepage quantities through different dam components individually lays the groundwork for improved seepage monitoring plans and enhanced dam safety management.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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