Short-Term Strain and Deformation Behavior of Geosynthetic Walls at Working Stress Conditions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reviews geosynthetic reinforcement strain measurement techniques that have been reported in a database of well-documented case studies and more recent full-scale laboratory test walls. Interpretation of strain measurements, accuracy of readings, and advantages and disadvantages of different techniques are discussed. In general, properly calibrated strain gauges have proven useful to estimate reinforcement strains at low strain levels (0.02 to 2%). Extensometers are shown to be accurate at strains greater than 2% and to have marginal reliability at strains between 0.5 and 2%. A strategy to improve confidence with interpretation of strain readings is to use strain gauges and extensometers in the field and to adjust strain gauge calibration factors based on in situ measurements from both devices. Corrected reinforcement strains can be used together with appropriately selected reinforcement stiffness values to estimate reinforcement loads. Estimated loads can then be compared to predicted values using current and proposed design methods for the internal stability of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it