MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051290467 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0249

Shear behaviour of sandy silt treated with lignosulfonate

2014· article· en· W2051290467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qingsheng Chen, Buddhima Indraratna

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland GovernmentAustralian Research Council
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringSiltSubgradeLimeSoil waterTriaxial shear testLeveePore water pressureSoil stabilizationGypsumEnvironmental scienceAsphaltShear (geology)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialSoil scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical stabilizers (e.g., cement, lime, gypsum, and other alkaline admixtures) have been widely used to enhance the strength and compressibility properties of subgrade soils. However, traditional chemical stabilizers are not always acceptable in Australia because they often pose a threat to the surrounding environment. Moreover, traditionally treated soils usually exhibit excessive brittle behaviour, which is often undesirable for transport infrastructure such as rail embankments and airport runways. To establish an alternative stabilizer that could overcome the above problems, this note presents a series of experimental results on the use of lignosulfonate (by-product of timber and paper industry), an environmentally friendly soil stabilizer effective for treating fine sandy silt that formed the bulk of an embankment fill at Penrith, Australia. The effects of lignosulfonate treatment on the shear behaviour of treated soil, including the stress–strain relationships, and the corresponding development of excess pore pressure and volumetric responses under monotonic triaxial testing are discussed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations53
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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