MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002355164 · doi:10.1139/t04-056

Compression and consolidation characteristics of structured natural clay

2004· article· en· W2002355164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N. Miura, Yudhbir Yudhbir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Geotechnical engineeringVoid ratioConstitutive equationHardening (computing)Effective stressMathematicsGeologyMaterials scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsComposite materialFinite element methodAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The compression and consolidation behavior of some structured natural clays are discussed. It is shown that for some structured natural clays, the relation between void ratio (e) and mean effective stress (p′) is more linear in a ln(e + ec) – ln(p′) plot (where ec is a soil parameter) than in an e – ln(p′) plot. It is proposed that for structured natural clay with a sensitivity value greater than 4, a linear ln(e + ec) – ln(p′) relation can be used in settlement and consolidation calculation. The effect of introducing a linear ln(e + ec) – ln(p′) relation on the calculated load–settlement curve and consolidation behavior of structured clays is discussed. The linear ln(e + ec) – ln(p′) relation was incorporated into the modified Cam–clay model by modifying the hardening law of the model. It is shown that using the linear ln(e + ec) – ln(p′) relation simulated the consolidation behavior of the structured natural clays better than using the linear e – ln(p′) relation.Key words: structured natural clay, compression, consolidation, constitutive model, numerical analysis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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