MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013177771 · doi:10.1520/gtj11292j

Laboratory Testing of Concrete-rock Joints in Constant Normal Stiffness Direct Shear

2002· article· en· W2013177771 on OpenAlexaff
JP Seidel, CM Haberfield

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringStiffnessDirect shear testGroutGeologyShear (geology)Surface finishConstant (computer programming)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the experimental component of an extensive investigation into the shear behavior of joints formed between concrete or cement grout and soft, weak or weathered rock. Understanding the behavior of such joints is important for the prediction of performance of a diverse range of structural elements, such as drilled piers socketed into rock, rock anchors, and dam foundations. The particular tests described in this paper were carried out on joints formed between concrete and an artificial silstone called Johnstone, under conditions of constant normal stiffness, and involved a range of boundary conditions and interface profiles. Interfaces included a series of regular triangular asperities and irregular profiles based on fractal geometry concepts. The authors have included the complete suite of test results in the belief that it will be a significant addition to the literature, which currently contains very few results of constant normal stiffness tests. It also demonstrates the importance of realistically modelling interface roughness. Careful observations made during testing using time-lapse photography have aided in the development of a number of simple theoretical models of behavior, which are published elsewhere.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations99
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207