MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049610465 · doi:10.1139/t02-069

A structured Cam Clay model

2002· article· en· W2049610465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M D Liu, John Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringShearing (physics)Critical state soil mechanicsSoil waterParametric statisticsSoil structureClay soilPlasticityCalcareous soilsGeologyConstitutive equationEngineeringMathematicsSoil scienceMaterials scienceStructural engineeringStatisticsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical study of the behaviour of structured soil is presented. A new model, referred to as the Structured Cam Clay model, is formulated by introducing the influence of soil structure into the Modified Cam Clay model. The proposed model is hierarchical, i.e., it is identical to the Modified Cam Clay soil model if a soil has no structure or if its structure is removed by loading. Three new parameters describing the effects of soil structure are introduced, and the results of a parametric study are also presented. The proposed model has been used to predict the behaviour of structured soils in both compression and shearing tests. By making comparisons of predictions with experimental data and by conducting the parametric study it is demonstrated that the new model provides satisfactory qualitative and quantitative modelling of many important features of the behaviour of structured soils.Key words: calcareous soils, clays, fabric, structure, constitutive relations, plasticity.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.174
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations351
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207