MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987198988 · doi:10.1139/t05-007

Influence de sollicitations hydriques et mécaniques complexes sur le comportement d'un sol gonflant compacté

2005· article· en· W1987198988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olivier Cuisinier, Farimah Masrouri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSuctionExpansive clayMaterials scienceHydric soilCompressibilityStress (linguistics)GeologySoil waterSoil scienceMechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of the paper is to present a study on compacted expansive soil strains generated by complex hydric or mechanical loadings and their consequences on tested soil compressibility. In the first part of the paper, the suction-controlled testing devices are described (osmotic and salt solution methods). All the presented tests were performed in the range of suctions between 0 and 40 MPa. The consequences of the strains induced by wetting as a function of the applied mechanical stress were analyzed. The results showed that, under these conditions, strain depends on the followed hydraulic path, whereas the slope of the plastic compression line λ(s) was only affected by the suction applied during the mechanical loading. The second test series demonstrated that the stress path influenced both deformation and slope λ(s) if suction higher than the initial sample suction was imposed during the test. As a conclusion, it could be stated that the slope λ(s) depends on the suction applied during a mechanical loading and on the maximum suction experienced by an expansive material during its past "history".Key words: compacted soil, suction, hydric cycle, hydromechanical behaviour, expansive soil.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207