MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015956735 · doi:10.1520/gtj100201

Use of a Downhole Block Sampler for Very Soft Organic Soils

2006· article· en· W2015956735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Long

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Soil testSoil waterSampling (signal processing)GeologyDilatantDirect shear testShear (geology)Materials scienceSoil scienceEngineeringPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Techniques required to successfully obtain downhole block samples of typical very soft high plasticity organic clay from Ireland are described. The vane shear strength of the material is as low as 4 kPa. These included using a sampler penetration rate three times faster than normally adopted. Comparisons are made between the results of laboratory tests on Sherbrooke block samples, on two fixed piston tube samplers, and on a continuous sampler. In addition idealized tube sampling strains were imposed on block sample specimens prior to shearing (ideal sampling approach). Both approaches confirmed that the material studied could not survive tube sampling undamaged, unlike the findings of a recent study in the Netherlands on Dutch organic soil. Tube sampling was found to have a more significant effect on triaxial test parameters that on those from the one-dimensional compression testing, where the behavior of the block sample specimens and those from one of the two tube samplers were similar to in situ response. Increasing levels of disturbance were associated with progressively more dilatant behavior.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.213
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207