Steel-shot method for measuring the density of soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The density of soil is crucial in engineering, construction, and research. Standard methods to determine density use procedures, equipment or expendable materials that limit their effectiveness in challenging field conditions. Some methods require burdensome logistics or have time requirements that limit their use or the number of tests that can be executed. A test method, similar to the sand-cone method, was developed that uses steel shot as the material to which a volume of soil is compared to calculate soil density. Steel shot is easily recovered and reused, eliminating the need for specialty sand and calibrated cones or containers, and allows rapid determination of the volume of displaced soil. Excavated soil also provides measurements of total mass and moisture content. Volume, mass, and moisture content are applied in simple calculations to determine wet and dry densities and unit weight of the soil. Proficiency in performing the test can be achieved with minimal training, and the required kit can be assembled for a reasonable cost. Field uses of the method in dry environments in a variety of soil types demonstrated that the method can produce repeatable results within 2% of the values of soil density determined by traditional methods, with advantages in logistics.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".