Earthwork compaction evaluation using soil air voids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The soil air voids method represents an alternate approach to the traditional Proctor method of field compaction control. The air voids evaluation procedure is based on the premise that the future performance of a compacted layer of soil can be evaluated by comparing the measured air voids with a predetermined limiting value. In theory, a field inspector can rapidly determine if a soil layer meets the specified compaction criteria without obtaining a soil sample for laboratory Proctor compaction testing. Recently, there has been renewed interest in this approach by state departments of transportation because of its timesaving benefits and relative simplicity. The results of this study indicate that the air voids method provides an indirect check on the dry density of the compacted layer; however, the soil water content is not directly assessed during the field evaluation. Using results from laboratory and field tests, examples are provided of problems that could occur with certain soil types if inherent water content limits are relied upon during compaction.Key words: compaction, air voids, Proctor compaction, specific gravity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it