On the estimation of scale of fluctuation in geostatistics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Describing how soil properties vary spatially is of particular importance in stochastic analyses of geotechnical problems, because spatial variability has a significant influence on local material and global geotechnical response. In particular, the scale of fluctuation θ is a key parameter in the correlation model used to represent the spatial variability of a site through a random field. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance to accurately estimate θ in order to best model the actual soil heterogeneity. In this paper, two methodologies are investigated to assess their abilities to estimate the vertical and horizontal scales of fluctuation of a particular site using in situ cone penetration test (CPT) data. The first method belongs to the family of more traditional approaches, which are based on best fitting a theoretical correlation model to available CPT data. The second method involves a new strategy which combines information from conditional random fields with the traditional approach. Both methods are applied to a case study involving the estimation of θ at three two-dimensional sections across a site and the results obtained show general agreement between the two methods, suggesting a similar level of accuracy between the new and traditional approaches. However, in order to further assess the relative accuracy of estimates provided by each method, a second numerical analysis is proposed. The results confirm the general consistency observed in the case study calculations, particularly in the vertical direction where a large amount of data are available. Interestingly, for the horizontal direction, where data are typically scarce, some additional improvement in terms of relative error is obtained with the new approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".