MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977661006 · doi:10.1680/geolett.12.00062

Disintegration energy of sensitive clays

2013· article· en· W1977661006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vikas Thakur, Samson Abate Degago

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandslideGeotechnical engineeringStiffnessNorwegianGeologyFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMaterials sciencePhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate assessment or prediction of landslides in sensitive clays is not a straightforward task due to the complexity associated with understanding such material during the sliding process. There have, however, been several attempts to assess flow slide potentials by looking at certain aspects of sensitive clays, one of which is studying the energy involved in the disintegration of sensitive clays from an intact to a remoulded state. This energy is referred to as disintegration energy (DE). Here, an analytical approach is proposed to evaluate the DE of sensitive clays based on an integrated study of strength and stiffness properties of sensitive clays in intact and remoulded states. The proposed approach is illustrated by studying the DE involved in Norwegian landslides. In addition, the proposed equation is shown to be in line with an equation used for Canadian sensitive clays. Furthermore, this article attempts to illustrate that the extent of flow slides is related to the DE involved in sensitive clays using five selected Norwegian landslides. The study shows that the amount of required DE can be used to estimate the extent of landslides in soft sensitive clays.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechnique LettersSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207