MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989496929 · doi:10.1139/t07-058

Development of the <i>K</i>-stiffness method for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls constructed with <i>c</i>-ϕ soils

2007· article· en· W1989496929 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yoshihisa MIYATA, Richard J. Bathurst

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersWashington State Department of Transportation
KeywordsStiffnessGeotechnical engineeringCohesion (chemistry)Soil waterReinforcementGeosyntheticsStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringSoil scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the K-stiffness method is extended to the case of c-ϕ soils using data obtained from a total of nine new case studies – six from Japan and three from the USA. A common feature in this new data set is that the walls were all constructed with a vertical face using backfill soils with a range of fines content. The walls varied widely with respect to facing type. This new data set together with previously published data for vertical walls is now used to isolate the effect of soil cohesion on reinforcement loads within the framework of the original K-stiffness method. The new data set is used to calibrate a modified K-stiffness method equation that includes a cohesion influence factor. The modified K-stiffness method is demonstrated to quantitatively improve the estimate of the magnitude and distribution of reinforcement loads for internal stability design of vertical-faced geosynthetic reinforced soil walls with c-ϕ soil backfills when compared to the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials simplified method.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations73
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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