MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161799190 · doi:10.82308/10800

Statistical analysis of monitoring data for Daniel Johnson dam

2003· dissertation· en· W7161799190 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wen Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisStatistical analysisComponent (thermodynamics)Arch damStatistical modelVisualizationSafety monitoringProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dam safety is always a high priority issue since failures result in severe property damage and loss of life. Many countries require that all existing dams need to be inspected and evaluated regularly. Monitoring instruments have long been an integral part of the dam safety process by providing information for detailed analyses as well as for monitoring the current condition of dams. In this thesis, statistical models are used to infer behavior characteristics of a multiple arch dam. First, a statistical model known as the Hydrostatic-Season-Time (H-S-T) model is fitted to each individual displacement component from pendulum data for the Daniel Johnson Dam, a multiple arch concrete dam located in Northern Quebec. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used with the data from pendulums. A modified PCA analysis was also performed after removing thermal effects. A C++ language program (DASOD) was developed for the estimation of the H-S-T model, visualization of results, and data preparation for the principal component analysis. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207