MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010128756 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0367

Active earth pressure due to soil mass partially subjected to water seepage

2015· article· en· W2010128756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Petrucio J. Santos, Pérsio L.A. Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringLateral earth pressureWedge (geometry)PhreaticGeologyNumerical analysisWater tableBoundary element methodRetaining wallLimit analysisPermeability (electromagnetism)Finite element methodGroundwaterEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for determination of the active earth pressure exerted by a cohesionless backfill, subjected to water seepage from a high water table, on a retaining structure is presented. The method comprises a numerical procedure based on the boundary element method (BEM) for the seepage analysis and a trial wedge method for the limit equilibrium analysis. The numerical results of the seepage analysis are presented as normalized charts that can be used in the trial wedge method without recourse to the BEM computer code. The main benefits of the proposed analysis are the simplicity of use and the small amount of data necessary. For the seepage analysis, only the phreatic line exit point height at the retaining structure face is required. Numerical results obtained for a proposed example of a retaining wall show the influence of the water seepage on the active earth pressure. The analysis method also can deal with cases of soil anisotropy with respect to the permeability.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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