Interpretation of in situ test results from the CANLEX sites
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
One of the primary objectives of the Canadian Liquefaction Experiment (CANLEX) project was to evaluate in situ testing techniques and existing interpretation methods as part of the overall goal to focus and coordinate Canadian geotechnical expertise on the topic of soil liquefaction. Six sites were selected by the CANLEX project in an attempt to characterize various deposits of loose sandy soil. The sites consisted of a variety of soil deposits, including hydraulically placed sand deposits associated with the oil sands industry, natural sand deposits in the Fraser River Delta, and hydraulically placed sand deposits associated with the hard-rock mining industry. At each site, a target zone was selected and various in situ tests were performed. These included standard penetration tests, cone penetration tests, seismic downhole cone penetration tests (giving shear wave velocity measurements), geophysical (gamma-gamma) logging, and pressuremeter testing. This paper describes the techniques used in the in situ testing program at each site and presents a summary and interpretation of the results.Key words: CANLEX, in situ testing, shear wave velocity, geophysical logging, pressuremeter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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