MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W161693116

Electro-Cementation of a Marine Clay Induced By Electrokinetics

2002· article· en· W161693116 on OpenAlexaff
S. Micic, Julie Q. Shang, K. Y. Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrokinetic phenomenaPorosityPore water pressureMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringMineralogyChemistryGeologyNanotechnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is directed to using electrokinetic processes for strengthening marine sediments in order to enhance the performance of skirted foundations. This paper studies the electrocementation that occurs during the electrokinetic treatment of a highly saline marine clay. The influence of electrokinetics on the soil structure is characterized by changes in the pore size distributions determined by mercury intrusion porosimetry. The porosity of the treated soil samples was significantly lower, and the pore diameters were significantly smaller than in of the untreated soil samples. The plasticity characteristics of treated soil were also changed after electrokinetic treatment; this is attributable to the electrokinetically enhanced grouping of clay particles into aggregates due to the presence of cementing agents and changes in type and concentration of ions in the soil pore water. The amounts of iron oxide and calcium carbonate, both well-known cementing agents in soil, increased after electrokinetic treatment; this increase contributes to the increase in soil shear strength and decrease in soil pore size. The results of CEC and glycol retention tests indicated that the surface charge of clay particles at the anode sides was reduced after electrokinetic treatment, leading to stronger interparticle bonds.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Offshore and Polar EngineeringSame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207