Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper analyzes field test results obtained by means of the Cambridge self-boring pressuremeter (SBPM) in a sensitive Champlain clay of Quebec. It is shown that, although the undrained shear strengths deduced from the SBPM tests are higher than the values obtained with the field vane, the observed discrepancy is reduced by taking into account progressive failure effects. It is not the SBPM test that overestimates the undrained shear strength, but rather the vane test that underestimates it in this sensitive clay. Total and effective field stress paths are inferred from the SBPM tests, and it is shown that the effective stress paths approach the tension zone of the MohrCoulomb failure diagram before heading towards the large-strain failure envelope of the clay. The pressuremeter interpretation has been thoroughly worked through for various uncertainties like undrained test conditions, plane-strain conditions, and disturbance, basing the final judgment on a comparison of the effective stress adjacent to the probe with that inferred from laboratory testing. It is also shown that the pore-water pressure, which is generated at the wall of the cavity during the plastic phase of the expansion, is practically equivalent to the increase in total radial pressure. The iterative forward modelling (IFM) technique is used to obtain linearly elastic perfectly plastic soil parameters by constraining the fit to match the initial horizontal pressure.Key words: self-boring pressuremeter, sensitive clay, stress paths, strain rate, progressive failure, pore pressures, vane tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".