MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019371222 · doi:10.1139/t07-063

A new genetic programming model for predicting settlement of shallow foundations

2007· article· en· W2019371222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Rezania, Akbar A. Javadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic programmingSettlement (finance)Artificial neural networkShallow foundationStandard penetration testFoundation (evidence)Human settlementFunction (biology)Computer scienceGenetic algorithmGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a new genetic programming (GP) approach for predicting settlement of shallow foundations is presented. The GP model is developed and verified using a large database of standard penetration test (SPT) based case histories that involve measured settlements of shallow foundations. The results of the developed GP model are compared with those of a number of commonly used traditional methods and artificial neural network (ANN) based models. It is shown that the GP model is able to learn, with a very high accuracy, the complex relationship between foundation settlement and its contributing factors, and render this knowledge in the form of a function. The attained function can be used to generalize the learning and apply it to predict settlement of foundations for new cases not used in the development of the model. The advantages of the proposed GP model over the conventional and ANN based models are highlighted.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations140
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207