MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042829940 · doi:10.1080/17486020701759644

Effects of hydraulic shear stress and rate of erosion on the magnitude, degree, and rate of collapse

2008· article· en· W2042829940 on OpenAlexafffund
Tahar Ayadat, Adel Hanna

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomechanics and Geoengineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDam Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringMagnitude (astronomy)GeologySoil waterDegree of saturationSettlement (finance)Shear (geology)Saturation (graph theory)ErosionHydraulic headShear stressEnvironmental scienceVoid ratioSoil scienceMaterials sciencePetrologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arid regions worldwide are plagued by collapsible soils. Collapsible soil is characterised by the sudden decrease in volume that occurs when it is subjected to inundation under constant stress. This volume change manifest itself as drastic and unpredicted foundation settlement, which may lead to further catastrophic failure of the supported structures. Collapse settlement is the term applied to the additional settlement of a foundation due to wetting of the underlying soils. The results of an experimental investigation of the effects of the saturation of soil with water, kerosene, and crude oil, and of the effects of the fluid head on the magnitude, degree, and rate of collapse of the underlying soil are presented in this paper. Soil erodibility is presented in terms of the applied hydraulic shear stress and the rate of erosion. The relationship between soil erosion and the magnitude and rate of collapse is examined. Empirical methods for the prediction of the magnitude and rate of collapse of a soil saturated with the test fluids and subjected to a hydraulic constant head are proposed.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomechanics and GeoengineeringSame topicDam Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207