MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lateral Pipe–Soil Interaction in Sand with Reference to Scale Effect

2005· article· en· W1987492667 on OpenAlexafffund
Peijun Guo, Dieter Stolle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyScale (ratio)Soil structure interactionStress (linguistics)Ground movementFinite element methodEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the pipe–soil interaction for pipes buried in cohesionless soil when subjected to lateral ground movement. A review and reappraisal of the literature is conducted to identify some inconsistencies and shortcomings of previous studies. The effects of model scale, stress level (via burial depth), burial depth ratio, and soil properties are systematically addressed through finite element analyses. The study concludes that the effects of pipe size and burial depth must be taken into account to properly estimate the maximum pipe–soil interaction forces induced by lateral ground movement. A unique equation considering scale and the effect of burial depth is proposed to determine the maximum pipe–soil interaction forces at various burial depth ratios.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations90
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207