MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009302650 · doi:10.1139/t10-076

Studies on the determination of swelling properties of soils from suction measurements

2011· article· en· W2009302650 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Hanumantha Rao, Katta Venkataramana, Devendra Narain Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwellingExpansive claySuctionGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterInstrumentation (computer programming)ExpansiveSoil scienceMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expansive soils exhibit significantly high volumetric deformations and hence, pose a serious threat to stability of structures and foundations. As such, determination of their swelling properties (viz., swelling potential and swelling pressure) becomes essential. Earlier researchers have developed various experimental techniques, and empirical relationships based on the results obtained from these investigations, for determining swelling characteristics of these soils. However, although these techniques help in direct estimation of the swelling properties of soils, the instrumentation is quite cumbersome and time consuming. This limitation can be overcome by measuring soil suction, which would also yield its swelling characteristics, though indirectly, but quite rapidly and easily. To demonstrate the utility and ease of application of this methodology, attempts were made in the present study to establish swelling properties of expansive soils from their suction measurements. Details of the methodology adopted are presented and results have been critically evaluated vis-à-vis those available in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207