Stability of the North Spur at Muskrat Falls : Comments and Discussion of a Paper by Stig Bernander and Lennart Elfgren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Part A, the geotechnical background is presented to a stability problem regarding the North Spur dam wall at Muskrat Falls in Churchill River in Newfoundland, Canada. This land was formed in the regression of the sea during and after the last ice age with deposits of multiple layers of silty sands and silty sandy clays that formed the valleys and plains that are now above sea level. Some of these layers, deposited thousands of years ago in post-glacial times, are vulnerable to liquefaction when they are disturbed. These conditions have in the past repeatedly caused slides along the banks of the Churchill river. In the report, a specific type of possible progressive failure –the most dangerous one in respect of the safety of the North Spur – is discussed. This type of landslide development may be caused by the rising water pressure, when - or after - the dam is impounded. As will be explained, such a slide could force part of the North Spur ridge to slide along a failure surface sloping East-wards into the deep river whirlpool downstream of Muskrat Falls. In the following, a brief overview is provided of the geotechnical background behind our concerns, also discussing methods of mitigating the risk of the kind of slopefailure in question. Hence, we propose measures such as compacting the soil by piling or by methods of grouting and drainage. We also suggest the need for an expert Advisory Panel to look further into the long-term safety of the North Spur. In Part B, the paper in Part A is discussed and the risk for a failure is denied. In Part C, finally, the authors of Part A, give their answer to the criticism and uphold their view: There may be a serieois risk for a dam breach caused by weak soil layers in the dam. This risk should be properly investigated and mitigated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".