MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970862291 · doi:10.1139/t02-091

Some experiences on the stabilization of Irish peats

2003· article· en· W1970862291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samir Hebib, Eric R. Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsConsolidation (business)PeatGeotechnical engineeringCompressibilitySoil stabilizationSettlement (finance)Soil testGeologySoil scienceEngineeringSoil waterArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the findings of a study into the engineering properties of two peats from the Irish Midlands that were mixed with various binders to form a stabilized soil. The study comprised an investigation of the increase in unconfined compressive strength over time achieved using different binders for both peats and a comprehensive series of triaxial and compression tests on one peat when mixed with cement. A stabilized structure (i.e., a stabilized surface layer and a stabilized column) was tested in a large testing chamber in Trinity College to compare the laboratory parameters with those interpreted from the results of the large-scale test. The study showed that the engineering properties of the peat were considerably improved when mixed with some binders, however the degrees of improvement were markedly different for the two peats that had similar organic content. The formation of the stabilized soil structure within the testing chamber significantly reduced the amount of settlement when compared with that interpreted for the untreated soil, and the rate of consolidation was accelerated. A finite element analysis of the recorded behaviour in the large testing chamber showed good agreement between the simulated and the experimental behaviour.Key words: peat, cement, stabilization, compressibility, column.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations176
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207