Re‐evaluation of the structural properties of some British swelling soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The structural condition of swelling soils can be assessed from their shrinkage curves. We re‐evaluated data on six British swelling soils using modern methods to model the void ratio, e , as a function of the moisture ratio, ϑ . The points on the e – ϑ curve were fitted with a constitutive shrinkage equation using an unbiased least‐squares, curve‐fitting program. The shrinkage curves were then differentiated to obtain their slopes, σ ( ϑ ), which were used to calculate the overburden potentials, Ω. The slope functions were subsequently differentiated to obtain the curvatures, κ ( ϑ ), from which the maximum curvature at the wet end was used to separate the structural shrinkage, S c , from the proportional (unsaturated) shrinkage. At the point of maximum curvature, S c and the volumetric air content, θ ac , were calculated and found to correspond closely to those reported previously. Water retention curves were constructed and fitted using the van Genuchten equation, from which the α coefficient appears an important structural parameter. The structural condition of a swelling soil appears to be well described by its air content at the point of maximum curvature, its van Genuchten α coefficient, and a parameter describing the effect of the overburden potential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".