MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014714548 · doi:10.1061/41095(365)32

Performance of Reinforced Collapsible Soil

2010· article· en· W2014714548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoFlorida 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotextileGeotechnical engineeringGeogridHomogeneousReinforcementSettlement (finance)Soil waterGeosyntheticsLayer (electronics)GeologyMechanically stabilized earthMaterials scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringRetaining wallSoil scienceComposite materialMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental investigation was carried out on a strip rigid footing resting on homogeneous and reinforced collapsible soils and subjected to inundation due to groundwater rise. The objective of this investigation is to examine the effect of reinforcements on the footing collapse settlement. Tests were conducted on homogeneous collapsible soil, partially replaced collapsible soil with compacted sand with geotextile reinforcement layer at the interface. Additional tests were performed after inserting geogrid reinforcement layer(s) within the compacted sand layer. An empirical formula is presented to predict the collapse settlement of the strip footing on homogeneous collapsible soil. The contributions of the replaced sand layer with the presence of the reinforcement layers to the collapse settlement were introduced in terms of reduction factors.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.166 · 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