Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cambridge-type models for soil (Cam-clay, Modified Cam-clay and NorSand) are idealised soil models based on a few simple postulates. This gives the models predictive power, and they offer interesting insight into soil behaviour. But the symmetry of the triaxial conditions for which the models were derived leaves an additional degree of freedom when generalising to arbitrary 3-D stress and strain states. The additional freedom creates unresolved inconsistencies in the plastic strain rates—usually dilatancy from the plastic potential not matching that implied by the work dissipation postulate (flow rule) under general 3-D stress states. It is shown that Cambridge-type models may be consistently generalised for arbitrary strain paths by adopting work conjugate invariants and by requiring primacy of the work dissipation postulate. The unresolved freedom for the strain rates is handled by interpolation between the limit conditions (triaxial compression and extension) that are fully defined because of symmetry. The approach is illustrated in the context of NorSand, using calibration under triaxial compression for published tests on Brasted sand to predict behaviour in the practically important case of plane strain. Excellent predictions are obtained over a range of sand densities from loose to dense.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".