MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034412277 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0090

Quantification of mechanical and hydric components of soil reinforcement by plant roots

2015· article· en· W2034412277 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume Veylon, Murielle Ghestem, Alexia Stokes, Alain Bernard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsHydric soilGeotechnical engineeringReinforcementCohesion (chemistry)LandslideSoil waterWater contentExpansive clayEnvironmental sciencePlant rootsGeologySoil scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of vegetation to stabilize slopes with regard to shallow landslides is an ecological and economic alternative to traditional solutions of civil engineering. This study aims at quantifying the effect of soil water content on the reinforcement of soil by plant roots and determines how soil water content influences the failure modes of roots during shear. Direct shear box tests were performed on three species used in hillslope reforestation programs in Yunnan, China. Reinforcement was quantified and divided into a hydric component corresponding to the effect of water removal and a mechanical component reflecting the influence of roots on apparent cohesion and friction angle. It was shown that the hydric component of reinforcement can be of the same order as the mechanical component and that root system architectural traits influence the type of mechanical reinforcement (cohesive or frictional). We also demonstrate the potential development of matric suction effects on the shear strength of soil.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations121
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207