MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978871379 · doi:10.1680/geolett.14.00051

On the distinct phenomena of suffusion and suffosion

2014· article· en· W1978871379 on OpenAlexafffund
R. J. Fannin, P. Slangen

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsInstabilityHydraulic conductivityMechanicsConductivityGeotechnical engineeringGeologySoil waterChemistrySoil sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seepage-induced internal instability is a phenomenon whereby fine particles are transported from a non-plastic soil. A distinction can readily be made between a washed-out soil structure that remains intact and one in which some form of destruction or collapse of the structure accompanies the migration of fine particles. The three variables of a measured value of mass loss, a measured value of volume change and a value of change in hydraulic conductivity, deduced from measurements of hydraulic gradient and flow rate, are sufficient to quantify, and hence distinguish between, seepage-induced internal instability phenomena. The term ‘suffusion’ is advocated to describe the non-destructive response, which may be quantified by a mass loss, no change in volume and an increase in hydraulic conductivity. The term ‘suffosion’ is recommended to describe the instability phenomenon whereby the transport of fine particles by seepage flow is accompanied by a collapse of the soil structure. Accordingly, this distinct internal instability phenomenon may be quantified by a mass loss, a volumetric contraction and a change in hydraulic conductivity.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.011
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.156
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations140
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechnique LettersSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207