MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981120241 · doi:10.1680/gein.2010.17.3.144

Wetting-drying behaviour of geogrid-reinforced clay under working load conditions

2010· article· en· W1981120241 on OpenAlex
Y. P. Pathak, Marolo Alfaro

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosynthetics International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeogridExpansive clayWettingGeotechnical engineeringGeosyntheticsReinforcementMaterials scienceGeotextileSwellingComposite materialSoil waterGeologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Large-scale plane-strain laboratory wetting–drying tests on geosynthetic-reinforced and unreinforced expansive clay specimens were performed to assess the interaction between geogrid and clay during wetting and drying. Independent vertical and lateral pressures were applied to the specimens to simulate anisotropic loading condition in the field. The wetting and drying processes were simulated by flooding the test specimens with water and subsequently removing water from the test box for drying the test specimens. Further drying of the test specimens was done by circulating warm air of about 35°C on both top and bottom of the test specimens. Geogrid reinforcement strains, soil specimen deformations, soil suctions and soil temperatures were monitored during the wetting–drying process. Additional strains were observed in the geogrid reinforcement due to a wetting–drying cycle of the expansive clay specimens. These strain levels were however considered minimal (less than 1% strain) to cause overstressing in the reinforcement. Overall, the geogrid reinforcement reduced the swelling of clay specimens.

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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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