MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975020876 · doi:10.1139/t08-023

Specimen nonuniformities in water-pluviated and moist-tamped sands under undrained triaxial compression and extension

2008· article· en· W1975020876 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Peter Thomson, R.C.K. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsVoid ratioGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Triaxial shear testStress pathVoid (composites)GeologyMaterials scienceShear (geology)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

X-ray computed tomography (CT) methods and specialized triaxial equipment were developed to quantify void ratio distribution within saturated sand specimens reconstituted by water pluviation and moist tamping methods during undrained triaxial compression and extension. The CT measurements were obtained at several points along the stress path of each specimen without significant removal of axial load. It was observed that two reconstitution methods yielded very different void ratio distributions within specimens. Significant void ratio redistribution occurred within each specimen during the undrained shearing tests. The influences of void ratio redistribution on globally observed specimen responses are discussed. The findings of this research investigation provide unique insight into fundamental aspects of saturated sand behaviour during undrained triaxial shearing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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