MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1890793150 · doi:10.1139/t11-010

Analysis of soil conditions and pipe behaviour at a field site

2011· article· en· W1890793150 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yafei Hu, Hung Q. Vu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringExpansive claySoil waterBreakageEnvironmental sciencePore water pressureInstrumentation (computer programming)Water contentGeologySoil scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water main pipes buried in expansive soils are often subjected to severe distress subsequent to installation. Excessive stresses may be induced due to either differential movement of the soils or swelling pressures from the soils along the pipes, impairing their performance or even breaking them. Field monitoring is an important means for understanding soil behaviour and its interaction with water mains. For this purpose, field instrumentation was successfully installed to monitor the performance of a section of water main placed in a well-developed area of a city neighbourhood where more frequent pipe breakage had occurred in recent years. The instrumentation included sensors to measure pipe wall strains, pipe displacement, in situ soil water content, soil pressure, and temperature. The instruments were installed in both the soil backfill and native soil around the backfill. This paper presents the analyses of monitoring data collected during the first 3 years after instrument installation. It was observed that the soil and pipe behaviour was affected significantly by soil properties and seasonal changes and correlated closely with the change pattern of the local meteorological conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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