On the estimation of scale of fluctuation in geostatistics
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it