MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003788061 · doi:10.1139/t99-109

Observed and calculated load-settlement relationship in a sandy gravel

2000· article· en· W2003788061 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F Rodriguez-Roa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Geotechnical engineeringFinite element methodConstitutive equationStress (linguistics)Stress–strain curveStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to obtain a better understanding of the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of the typical gravel of Santiago, Chile, due to the increasing needs for construction of high-rise buildings, multilevel underground constructions, and new subway lines to be built under historical city landmarks. A finite-element computer program to perform incremental stress-strain analyses of soils was developed on the basis of a modified version of the hyperbolic elastic model. The changes herein proposed to this well-known constitutive model were based on triaxial tests carried out on 150 mm diameter specimens of compacted sandy gravels which involved various stress paths. A comparison was performed between the observed and calculated load-settlement relationship in a plate-load test that included unloading-reloading cycles. From the good agreement obtained it is concluded that the modified version of the hyperbolic model proposed represents reasonably well the behavior of the Santiago gravel.Key words: constitutive relations, finite-element model, laboratory tests, field tests, soil properties, case history.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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