MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494440649 · doi:10.1520/gtj103093

Preparing Very Loose Granular Triaxial Specimens by Ex Situ Freezing

2010· article· en· W1494440649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David S. Graham, David J. Elton

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringLiquid nitrogenGround freezingTriaxial shear testFrost heavingVolume (thermodynamics)Materials scienceGeologyGranular materialCongelationShear (geology)Composite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ex situ soil freezing can be used to prepare very loose cohesionless triaxial specimens that can be handled, stored, and transported. This paper describes two freezing techniques, freezing with cold air in a freezer and freezing with liquid nitrogen. These methods are used to prepare very loose saturated Ottawa sand specimens. Special equipment and techniques used for each method are described. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods and the effectiveness of the efforts to minimize disturbance due to volume changes during freezing are discussed. Properties of specimens prepared using each method are presented. The results of 16 consolidated undrained triaxial shear tests are presented. The freezing method affects the amount of volume change during freezing but does not significantly affect the effective angle of internal friction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207