MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1997317763 · doi:10.1139/t08-027

Reply to the discussion by Delgado and Poyatos on “A procedure for the design of protective filters”Appears in Canadian Geotechnical Journal, <b>45</b>: 437–439.

2008· article· en· W1997317763 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
G. L. Sivakumar Babu, Amit Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringGeologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors thank the discussers for their efforts in identifying a few issues related to the protective filter design methodologies and some of the aspects to be considered in the proposed methodology for calculating the D15f of the filter media. The authors agree with the discussers that the proposed methodology is based on the permeability criterion. As presented in the note, the developed solution is based on the permeability criteria only, as it is based on the Kozeny–Karman solution, and hence, the approach provides a value of (D15f)min. The calculated value of the D15f size of the filter media from the proposed analytical solution can be used in conjunction with the established empirical criterion. If the calculated value of the D15f size of the filter media falls outside the range of D15f, obtained empirically, the filter design can be revised to obtain a value of D15f in the range. It is established that the soil retention and permeability criteria are contradictory requirements with regard to the consideration of particle size D15f. There is a need to develop a solution based on the soil retention criterion as well, which will be able to provide a (D15f)max value. Therefore, based on the limit equilibrium of forces responsible for the soil retention such as hydrodynamic force, drag force, submerged weight of soil particles, and frictional force due to particle contact, the authors have conducted studies to develop a model to obtain a (D15f)max value, and the results are communicated for possible publication. As stated by the discussers, except for the soil retention and permeability criteria, other conditions that the filter must meet include the following: (i) it must not segregate, (ii) it must not change in gradation, (iii) it must not have apparent or real cohesion, (iv) it must be internally stable, and (v) it must have sufficient discharge capacity. As indicated by the discussers, ICOLD (1994) identifies two fundamental criteria, i.e., (i) soil retention and (ii) permeability, to be satisfied for the proper functioning of the filter media. In authors’ opinion, other conditions are related to post-construction behaviour and performance measurements of the filter media. A good quality control measurements will meet these requirements to ensure proper functioning of filter media. The following points address some of the other issues raised by the discussers with regard to the literature survey and the derivation of the proposed analytical solution:

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0580.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→