MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980122763 · doi:10.1139/t04-117

Model studies of a circular footing supported on geocell-reinforced clay

2005· article· en· W1980122763 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeogridGeotechnical engineeringReinforcementFoundation (evidence)Clay soilGeosyntheticsStructural engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceSoil waterGeologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential benefits of geocell reinforcement in soft clay foundations have been studied by a series of laboratory-scale static load tests on a rigid circular footing placed on a fill surface. Parameters of the test program include depth of placement of the geocell layer, width and height of the geocell layer, and influence of an additional layer of planar geogrid at the base of the geocell mattress. With the provision of geocell reinforcement, the load-carrying capacity of the soft clay foundation can be improved by a factor of up to 4.8 times that of the unreinforced soil. Heaving of the soil can be reduced substantially by providing geocell reinforcement of sufficient height and width. Further improvement in performance could be obtained with the provision of an additional layer of planar geogrid at the base of the geocell mattress.Key words: model study, circular footing, soft clay, geocell reinforcement, reinforced soil.

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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.206 · 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