MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995264187 · doi:10.1139/t07-092

A coupled consolidation shear model for the process of formation of glaciated soils

2008· article· en· W1995264187 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bingquan Huang, Jitendra Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)GeologySoil waterGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Soil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been generally observed that the measured preconsolidation pressure values for glaciated soils are not compatible with the measured effective pressure values at the bed of the glacier if one-dimensional consolidation alone is considered as the formation process for these soils. In this paper, a new model for the process of formation of glaciated soil, termed the coupled consolidation shear (CCS) model, is developed using the frameworks of critical state soil mechanics and small-strain consolidation theory. The CCS model includes simultaneous shearing and consolidation of subglacial sediments and is able to simulate profiles of preconsolidation pressure versus depth that closely resemble those observed in glaciated soils. The CCS model is validated by successfully simulating the profile of preconsolidation pressure versus depth for an 80 m deep Battleford till layer in Birsay, Saskatchewan, Canada. The CCS model suggests the existence of anisotropic yield strength and stiffness in glaciated soils as a consequence of coupling subglacial shear and consolidation.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
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
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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