MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994281378 · doi:10.1139/t06-069

Steady-state lines of sand–silt mixtures

2006· article· en· W1994281378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Songtang Yang, Rolf Sandven, L. Grande

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Science FoundationNorges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige UniversitetNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSiltVoid ratioGeotechnical engineeringVoid (composites)Intergranular corrosionMineralogyGeologyCharacterisation of pore space in soilPorosityMaterials scienceComposite materialMicrostructureGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The steady-state lines (SSLs) for sand–silt mixtures with various fines contents (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 94%) were studied. It was indicated that the location of the SSL in the e–p′ space is different for each mixture, but the SSLs are parallel. In the e – ln p′ plot, the SSLs are similar for the mixtures with a fines content of less than the transitional fines content (TFC) when tested under drained and undrained conditions and the intergranular and interfine void ratios are used. The data diverge when the fines contents are equal to or greater than the TFC, even though the interfine void ratios are used. The results of the tests conducted under drained and undrained conditions produced a unique SSL in the p′–q space for each material. Different SSLs in the p′–q space were observed for the studied materials, and the friction angle at steady state varied in the range of 37.3°–42.2°. The study showed that the SSLs can be represented by one line in tests under drained conditions if the fines contents are less (0%–30%) than the TFC and the corrected intergranular void ratios are used. The lines can also be represented by one line for sand–silt mixtures with high fines contents (50%–94%) if the corrected interfine void ratios are used instead of void ratios. Key words: steady-state line, sand–silt mixtures, transitional fines content, drained and undrained triaxial tests.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations97
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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