MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Closure to “Lateral Pipe-Soil Interaction in Sand with Reference to Scale Effect” by P. J. Guo and D. F. E. Stolle

2006· article· en· W2043235004 on OpenAlexaff
Peijun Guo, Dieter Stolle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)Geotechnical engineeringFriction angleClosure (psychology)Elastic modulusModulusOverburden pressureStress (linguistics)MechanicsLateral earth pressureDependency (UML)Materials scienceGeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors note that their research describes the effects of pipe (or size effect) as well as the differences between a full-scale and a reduced scale (or model effect), particularly under 1 g conditions. They further state that pressure sensitivity affects perfectly rigid grains; even those that interact by frictional forces with an intergrain friction coefficient working independently of the magnitude of the normal force. For that reason, the authors do not see particle crushing as inducing stress-level dependency in the normal stress range of the soil-pipe interaction presented in their research; however, they do concur that particle crushing under high confining pressures may contribute to stress-level dependency. As to the effect changes in cohesion c and elastic modulus E by the same factor, the authors state that their paper does not consider this. They add that in physical modeling, the scale effect cannot be viewed as identical to the effect owing to a variation in the cohesion c and the elastic modulus E by a factor.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207