MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1836098481

DRDC Suffield Soil Laboratory Program. Triaxial Test Results - Onager Site

2004· article· en· W1836098481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Küpper

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil testEnvironmental scienceConsolidation (business)Soil waterGeotechnical engineeringHydrology (agriculture)GeologySoil science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited (AMEC) was retained by Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) Suffield to carry out laboratory testing on soil samples from prairie soil samples from the Mine Effects Site near Building 148 on the Experimental Proving Ground at DRDC Suffield. AMEC's geotechnical laboratory in Edmonton, Alberta received three large, bag soil samples in late October 2003 for DRDC's Piston, Onager East and Onager West sites. The following laboratory tests were requested by DRDC: 1. Determination of water content of soil samples; 2. Preparation of compacted samples in range of natural water contents; 3. Consolidation tests using ASTM D2435 on two samples; and 4. Triaxial undrained tests (CUP) using ASTM D4767 on three samples. A typical range of natural water contents of 13 to 19 percent was provided to AMEC by DRDC Suffield for similar soil at these sites. For testing, compacted samples were prepared at water contents within the natural water content range, with target water contents of approximately 15 percent. Results are provided according to American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) standards where applicable. Results for the bulleted items 1-3 are provided in CR 2004-112, DRDC Soil Laboratory Program - Progress Report Piston and Onager Sites.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207