MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986168404 · doi:10.1139/t00-120

Confining stress and static shear effects in cyclic liquefaction

2001· article· en· W1986168404 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Y. P. Vaid, James David Stedman, S. Sivathayalan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLiquefactionOverburden pressureGeotechnical engineeringShear (geology)Shear stressMaterials scienceGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liquefaction resistance of a sand under cyclic loading is assessed and the effects of the levels of confining pressure and static shear on resistance to liquefaction are investigated. Site-specific values of the resistance under specified levels of confining and static shear stresses are measured in the laboratory. The measured values are compared with those which would be predicted by the application of empirical multiplying factors Kσand Kαto the reference resistance at 100 kPa effective confining stress with no static shear. It is shown that Kσand Kαare not independent, as assumed in current practice. The combined factor Kσ× Kαresulting from the empirical method is shown to underestimate the cyclic resistance ratio regardless of the initial density and confining and static shear levels. The degree of conservatism is most dramatic at looser density states.Key words: sand, liquefaction, static, cyclic, static shear, confining stress.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations175
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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