MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979602846 · doi:10.1139/t08-046

Comparison of two criteria for internal stability of granular soil

2008· article· en· W1979602846 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Hydro (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringInstabilityInternal erosionSoil waterGranular materialGeologyStability (learning theory)Flow (mathematics)MathematicsSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceMechanicsComputer scienceGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internal instability describes the loss of soil particles as a result of seepage. Two criteria are commonly used to determine the potential for such instability within a granular soil that is subject to seepage flow. The criteria are similar, in that they both require an evaluation of the slope of the grain-size distribution curve. However, the manner in which the evaluation is made yields a subtle difference between the respective methods. Comparison of the methods reveals that the difference can have implications for evaluation of broadly graded soils, and guidance is suggested for their use with greater confidence in engineering practice.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.246 · 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