MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980426040 · doi:10.1139/t04-013

Dissipated strain energy method for determining preconsolidation pressure

2004· article· en· W1980426040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L B Wang, J. David Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)DissipationGeotechnical engineeringStrain energyCompactionMaterials scienceMechanicsGeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dissipated strain energy method (DSEM), a new method for determining the preconsolidation pressure, is presented in this paper. Compared with the energy method, the DSEM uses dissipated strain energy and the slope of the unloading–reloading cycle (in the strain energy – effective consolidation stress space) for the plot to minimize the sample disturbance effects and eliminate the effect of elastic deformation. Dissipated strain energy, in terms of micro mechanics, is directly related to the irreversible process of consolidation and can be supported by theories dealing with consolidation and compaction. The use of the unloading–reloading slope to simulate the elastic reloading for the recompression stage can minimize sample disturbance effects. Examples presented indicate that the proposed new method is less operator dependent than most of the existing methods.Key words: dissipated strain energy, preconsolidation pressure, consolidation, energy method, dissipated strain energy method.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations38
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207