MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033618215 · doi:10.1139/t09-089

Structural characterization of unsaturated aggregated soil

2010· article· en· W2033618215 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Koliji, L. Vulliet, Lyesse Laloui

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Neuchâtel
KeywordsSoil structureMercury intrusion porosimetryEnvironmental scanning electron microscopePorosimetryPorosityGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceCharacterization (materials science)Soil waterMaterials scienceSoil testGeologyEnvironmental sciencePorous mediumScanning electron microscopeComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent experimental studies of soil structure, a comprehensive understanding of the macroscopic response of a soil in relation to its structure has not yet been achieved. This lack of understanding reveals the need for further assessments of soil structure and its evolution under loading. In this work, the structure of an aggregated soil under various conditions of saturation and mechanical loading is studied. We also compare the aggregated soil structure, which shows a double porous fabric, with that of the same soil when reconstituted. The experimental methods selected for this study are a combination of mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM), and neutron computed tomography (CT). Using MIP and ESEM, we first examine the soil fabric at the intra-aggregate scale. Then, we quantify the structural evolution of the soil using neutron tomography and link it to the macroscopic response of the soil. Based on the experimental evidence, the main features of the soil structure and its evolution are outlined for unsaturated aggregated soil under different loading conditions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations99
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207