MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996193467 · doi:10.1520/gtj11960

Centrifuge Modeling of Rigid Square Footings on Weak Jointed Rock

2005· article· en· W1996193467 on OpenAlexaff
L Dunham, AJ Valsangkar, A. B. Schriver

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringCentrifugeSquare (algebra)GeologyMathematicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four series of centrifuge tests were performed using a model rock made from a mixture of sand, bentonite, cement, and water. Tests were conducted to determine the effect of horizontal and vertical discontinuities in the bedrock on the load settlement response of a rigid, shallow footing. A prototype footing, measuring 1 m × 1 m, was simulated in the study. Horizontal and vertical joints, in-filled with compressible material, were simulated by incorporating thin seams of styrofoam. Results from this study are compared to the commonly used methods used to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on jointed rock mass. It is concluded that the existing methods to predict the bearing capacity are conservative for the range of design parameters studied in this research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207