MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bearing Capacity of Rough Rigid Strip Footing on Cohesive Soil: Probabilistic Study

2002· article· en· W1980020195 on OpenAlexaff
D. V. Griffiths, Gordon A. Fenton, N. Manoharan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)Bearing capacityGeotechnical engineeringProbabilistic logicParametric statisticsRandom fieldSpatial variabilityMonte Carlo methodNonlinear systemFinite element methodStructural engineeringMathematicsGeologyEngineeringStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A probabilistic study on the bearing capacity of a rough rigid strip footing on a weightless cohesive soil is carried out to assess the influence of randomly distributed undrained shear strength. Nonlinear finite element analysis is merged with random field theory in conjunction with a Monte Carlo method. In a parametric study, the mean shear strength is held constant while the coefficient of variation and spatial correlation length of cohesion are varied systematically. The influence of the spatial variation of cohesion on the mean bearing capacity is discussed. The results are also presented in a probabilistic context to determine the probability of failure. A comparison between rough and smooth footing conditions is also made.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.166
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations296
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207