MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032252726 · doi:10.1139/t09-012

Soil improvement using electroosmosis with the injection of chemical solutions: field tests

2009· article· en· W2032252726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chang‐Yu Ou, Shao-Chi Chien, Hsuan-Hsiang Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringCementation (geology)Polarity reversalSodium silicateMaterials scienceSoil waterElectrodeComposite materialGeologySoil scienceChemistryEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous laboratory studies have shown that the injection of a calcium chloride solution followed by the injection of a sodium silicate solution during electroosmosis is effective in strengthening soft silty clay. Very stiff cemented soil near the anodes is formed after the treatment. This paper presents the effectiveness of the process in the field. Nine electrodes were installed using two grid arrangements with electrode spacings of 2.0 m × 2.5 m and 2.0 m × 5.0 m. The test procedure is similar to those employed in the laboratory. Test results show that the soil surrounding the anodes (within a diameter of 50–60 cm) became very stiff and cemented due to the effect of cementation between the two chemical solutions and soil particles under the electric field. Except for the areas of stiff cemented soil, the undrained shear strength of the soil between electrodes was increased substantially. Polarity reversal after normal polarity did not produce favorable improvement effects in terms of undrained shear strength of the soil and treatment time.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations65
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207