MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strength Measurement for Near-Seabed Surface Soft Soil Using Manually Operated Miniature Full-Flow Penetrometer

2010· article· en· W1968745665 on OpenAlexaff
Han Eng Low, Mark Randolph

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsPenetrometerGeotechnical engineeringPenetration testGeologySeabedDirect shear testPenetration (warfare)Shear (geology)Ball (mathematics)Cone penetration testSoil waterEngineeringSoil scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A manually operated penetrometer (DMS) fitted with cylindrical (T-bar) and ball penetrometer tips was developed for measuring the profiles of undisturbed and remolded undrained shear strength within box-core samples. This paper summarizes the findings of a series of miniature penetrometer tests and vane shear tests that were carried out on reconstituted clay from a local site in Western Australia. The aim of the tests was to evaluate the potential of the DMS in characterizing the shear strength of seabed surficial sediments. It was found that the DMS gave essentially identical T-bar and ball penetration resistances but these were up to 17% lower than the net cone resistance. From the comparison between the T-bar and ball penetration resistance and the shear strengths measured from vane shear tests, average N factors of 11 and 14 were obtained for intact and fully remolded conditions, respectively. The test results suggest that the DMS is a reliable and efficient means of obtaining intact and remolded shear strength profiles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207