Discussion of “Test fill on soft plastic marine clay at Onsøy, Norway”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comprehensive technical article by Berre (2014) on the plastic marine clay at Onsoy, Norway, merits further examination. We attempted to determine C /Cc for Onsoy clay using the Cc and C values in Table 1. The computed values of C /Cc based on tests Oed 1X to Oed 4X were, however, dissimilar and some of the values of C /Cc, for example for test Oed 4X, do not seem reasonable. Fortunately, the author has carefully defined the Cc and C values that are listed in Table 1. It turns out, according to the List of symbols, that the compression index Cc “has been calculated for the steepest part of the a ′ versus a plot above pc ′.” On the other hand the values of a ′ at which C wasmeasured are clearly shown on Figs. 20 to 23. For computing C /Cc for any soil, C and Cc must be defined at the same consolidation pressure (e.g., a ′ or v ′ , Mesri and Godlewski 1977; Mesri and Castro 1987). It is readily possible to determine from Figs. 20 to 23 the values of tangent Cc/(1 + eo), where eo is the initial or preconstruction void ratio, at consolidation pressures at which secondary compression was allowed to determine C . Note that the values of eo = ei are also listed in Table 1. The values of Cc determined from Figs. 20 to 23 together with the corresponding values of C from Table 1 are listed in Table D1. The computed values of C /Cc for the four oedometer tests’ data are nearly identical, and the average C /Cc for Onsoy marine clay is near the most representative value of 0.04 for inorganic soft clays (Terzaghi et al. 1996, Table 16.1, p. 110). Berre (2014) reports a Ko-value for Onsoy plastic clay equal to 0.60 determined by hydraulic fracturing tests in the field. It is interesting to compare the Ko-value of 0.60 by hydraulic fracture with the values of Ko computed by the empirical equations proposed by Mesri and Hayat (1993) for Ko of soft clay deposits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".