MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probabilistic Analysis of Coupled Soil Consolidation

2009· article· en· W2043113469 on OpenAlexaff
Jinsong Huang, D. V. Griffiths, Gordon A. Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConsolidation (business)Biot numberCompressibilityMonte Carlo methodParametric statisticsRandom fieldGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodRandom variableMathematicsStatisticsGeologyMechanicsPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coupled Biot consolidation theory was combined with the random finite-element method to investigate the consolidation behavior of soil deposits with spatially variable properties in one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) spaces. The coefficient of volume compressibility (mv) and the soil permeability (k) are assumed to be lognormally distributed random variables. The random fields of mv and k are generated by the local average subdivision method which fully takes account of spatial correlation, local averaging, and cross correlations. The generated random variables are mapped onto a finite-element mesh and Monte Carlo finite-element simulations follow. The results of parametric studies are presented, which describe the effect of the standard deviation, spatial correlation length, and cross correlation coefficient on output statistics relating to the overall “equivalent” coefficient of consolidation. It is shown that the average degree of consolidation defined by excess pore pressure and settlement are different in heterogeneous soils. The dimensional effect on the soil consolidation behaviors is also investigated by comparing the 1D and 2D results.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations106
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207