MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978656552 · doi:10.1139/t09-138

Volume change behaviour of a compacted scaly clay during cyclic suction changes

2010· article· en· W1978656552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Camillo Airò Farulla, Alessio Ferrari, Enrique Romero

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOedometer testGeotechnical engineeringSuctionMaterials scienceWettingEnvironmental scanning electron microscopeContext (archaeology)Volume (thermodynamics)Water contentComposite materialScanning electron microscopeGeologySoil waterSoil scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented in this paper focuses on the investigation and modelling of the volume change response of compacted tectonised clay samples subjected to several wetting and drying cycles in controlled-suction oedometers. Oedometer tests were carried out under different values of constant vertical net stress, and wetting and drying cycles were performed varying applied matric suction between 10 and 800 kPa. The investigation was complemented with a study of the material microstructure to support the interpretation of the overall mechanical response. At a microscopic level, the material is characterized by different types of particle assemblages, scales, and clay aggregates. One of these assemblages was also subjected to a relative humidity cycle in an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) to investigate the reversibility of the mechanical response. Based on the experimental results, the clay volume change behaviour is discussed and interpreted within the context of a double structure elastoplastic model. The procedure used to derive elastic and plastic constitutive parameters is presented. Comparison of test results with model predictions shows a satisfactory agreement between measured and calculated strain evolution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

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

Citations78
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207