Predicted versus measured soil movements induced by shield tunnelling in the Madrid Metro extension
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
A detailed study on the available methods of predicting ground movements due to tunnelling works was carried out during the construction of the Madrid Metro extensions in 19951999 and 19992003. A total of 100 km were built and commissioned during this period. A numerical model was developed to simulate the earth pressure balance (EPB) excavation procedure and to complement some of the deficiencies found in previous analytical or empirical subsidence estimation procedures. Before the beginning of the works, a total of six different methods were used to estimate ground movements generated by the tunnelling works at some monitored sections placed in all five cities linked by the 19992003 extension, and the estimations were published in an earlier paper in this journal. Once all tunnelling works were finished and actual measurements carried out, a number of comparisons between predictions and measurements were made and are included in this paper. Conclusions about the applicability and accuracy of the methods are established with the aim of helping researchers and engineers in their future projects.Key words: ground movements, monitoring, numerical modelling and analysis, settlement, tunnels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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