MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983999227 · doi:10.1520/gtj12695

A Convenient Graphical Representation of Compaction Data

2006· article· en· W1983999227 on OpenAlexaff
RP Chapuis, Mamert Mbonimpa, Michel Aubertin, A-M Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompactionGeotechnical engineeringRepresentation (politics)GeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The results of compaction tests are usually presented as dry density versus molding water content. In the corresponding graph, the curves of levels of saturation appear as hyperbolas. A new graphical presentation is proposed where the inverse of the dry density is plotted against the molding water content. In this convenient representation, all curves of equal degree of saturation become straight lines, which facilitates plotting and interpolation. It appears also more practical to establish a linkage with other graphs, such as those relating mechanical or hydraulic properties, to void ratio.

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 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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207