Towards geophysical and geotechnical integration for quick‐clay mapping in Norway
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Quick clay is a known hazard in formerly‐glaciated coastal areas in e.g., Norway, Sweden and Canada. In this paper, we review the physical properties of quick clays in order to find a suitable, integrated and multi‐disciplinary approach to improve our possibilities to accurately identify the occurrence of quick clay and map its extent both vertically and laterally. As no single geophysical method yields optimal information, one should combine a variety of geophysical methods with geotechnical data ( in situ measurements using Cone Penetration Testing (CPTU), Seismic CPTU (SCPTU) and Resistivity CPTU (RCPTU); laboratory tests) for an in‐depth quick‐clay assessment at a given site. In this respect, geophysical data are used to fill the gaps between geotechnical boreholes providing ground‐truth. Such an integrated and multi‐disciplinary approach brings us closer to 2D or pseudo‐3D site characterization for quick clays and as such, an improved assessment of the potential hazard they pose. The integrated approach is applied in practice on two Norwegian quick‐clay sites. The first site, Hvittingfoss, was remediated against potential landslides in 2008 whereas the second one, Rissa, was the scene of a major quick‐clay landslide in 1978, quick clays being still present over a large area. The collected data and preliminary site characterizations illustrate the high diversity as well as the complexity and clearly emphasize the need for higher resolution, careful imaging and calibration of the data in order to accomplish the assessment of a quick‐clay hazard.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it