MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983653891 · doi:10.1139/t99-122

A full-scale stability experiment on a diaphragm wall trench

2000· article· en· W1983653891 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiin-Song Tsai, Lee‐Der Jou, Hsii-Sheng Hsieh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchGeotechnical engineeringGeologySlurrySettlement (finance)Deformation (meteorology)Full scaleDiaphragm (acoustics)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialElectrical engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a full-scale field experiment on the stability of a slurry-filled diaphragm wall trench. The objective of this experiment was to observe the failure pattern of a slurry-supported trench excavated in sandy ground. Ground responses, including settlement and lateral deformation of the surrounding ground adjacent to the experimental trench, were carefully monitored during the experiment. The stability of the trench was examined by lowering the slurry level in stages. The trench was deliberately failed. Field observations indicated that the experimental trench failed in 2 h in a progressive sliding pattern that resulted in a near-hemispherical cave-in of the adjacent ground. In this paper, a failure mechanism of the trench is proposed and an analytical method is adopted to back-analyze the stability of the trench. The stability of the trench and the failure pattern can be accurately analyzed using the method of Tsai and Chang.Key words: full-scale experiment, field test, slurry trench, stability analysis.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations50
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207