MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2040800319 · doi:10.1139/t10-001

Finite element investigations of granular material behaviour during cyclic wall shearing under a constant normal stiffness condition

2010· article· en· W2040800319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Tejchman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShearing (physics)Void ratioMaterials scienceStiffnessVoid (composites)Constitutive equationGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodShear (geology)MechanicsGranular materialDirect shear testComposite materialRelative densityStructural engineeringMicrostructureGeologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behaviour of dry and cohesionless sand during quasi-static cyclic wall shearing under a constant normal stiffness (CNS) condition was studied. Numerical calculations were carried out using a finite element method based on a hypoplastic constitutive model extended by micropolar quantities: rotations, curvatures, and couple stresses. The mean grain diameter was used as the characteristic length of the microstructure. The constitutive model takes into account the effects of pressure, void ratio, and direction of deformation rate on the material’s behaviour. Calculations were performed for several shear cycles in a direct wall shear tester. The initial void ratio, mean grain diameter of sand, and vertical normal stiffness were varied. The numerical results with medium density sand were compared with corresponding laboratory 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical Journal→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→