Liquefaction potential evaluations: energy-based method versus stress-based method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dataset of undrained cyclic triaxial tests for liquefaction with parametrically changing relative density and fines content is reviewed and interpreted in the scope of energy. It is found that the strain amplitude or pore-pressure buildup during cyclic loading is uniquely correlated not only to the energy dissipated in soil specimens, but also to strain energy given from outside. Hence, an energy-based method (EBM) is developed in which liquefaction potential can be evaluated by comparing strain energy for liquefaction in a sand layer with upcoming seismic energy without regard to the differences in seismic motions. Comparative studies in soil models demonstrate that the effect of various input motions is intrinsically included in EBM, whereas it has to be considered by choosing proper coefficients in a conventional stress-based method (SBM). Another significant difference is that liquefaction potential tends to be higher for a shallower depth in EBM, while it is vice versa in SBM in a uniform sand deposit.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it