MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988486178 · doi:10.1139/t00-002

A geosynthetic reinforcement solution to prevent the formation of localized sinkholes

2000· article· en· W1988486178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pascal Villard, J.P. Gourc, H. Giraud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSinkholeReinforcementGeotechnical engineeringSettlement (finance)ArchDeformation (meteorology)Structural engineeringFinite element methodRutGeologyEngineeringKarstMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To prevent the appearance of localized sinkholes under roads and railway lines in areas at risk, a research program testing a geosynthetic reinforcement solution was carried out by a group of laboratories. The aim of the reinforcement is to limit surface deformation after the appearance of a sinkhole by making the surface settlement as compatible as possible with the geometrical safety criteria of the road or railway line until earth filling and repair works can be scheduled. Full-scale tests were carried out on reinforced, instrumented road and railway structures subjected to localized collapse. At the same time, a numerical study was carried out to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms involved (arch effect, membrane effect, and collapse mechanisms). The experimental results of the full-scale tests were analyzed and compared with the results of three-dimensional finite element modeling.Key words: localized sinkhole, karstic cavity, reinforcement, geosynthetic.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations70
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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