MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1691893860 · doi:10.1139/t2012-063

Evaluation of overburden stress effects on liquefaction resistance at Duncan Dam

2012· article· en· W1691893860 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ross W. Boulanger, I. M. Idriss

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverburdenLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringStandard penetration testPenetration testGeologyOverburden pressureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cyclic resistance of sand unit 3c at Duncan Dam in British Columbia for overburden stresses of about 2 to 12 atm (1 atm = 101.325 kPa) was evaluated previously using cyclic undrained direct simple shear (DSS) and cyclic undrained triaxial testing of samples obtained using frozen sampling techniques. The in situ standard penetration test (SPT) and laboratory testing results provide a unique set of data for evaluating how the effects of effective overburden stress are accounted for in liquefaction evaluation procedures. The present study re-examines the cyclic resistance of these sands based on the field and laboratory test data for the unit 3c sands underlying Duncan Dam relative to the site-specific procedures developed by Pillai and Byrne and the liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures presented by Idriss and Boulanger, Youd et al., and Cetin et al. The differences in the results and the reasons for the differences are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207