MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053083574 · doi:10.1139/t09-059

Simple shear testing of sensitive, very soft offshore clay for wide strain range

2009· article· en· W2053083574 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giuseppe Lanzo, Alessandro Pagliaroli, Paolo Tommasi, Francesco Latino Chiocci

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoid ratioShear modulusGeotechnical engineeringSimple shearDamping ratioPlasticityShear (geology)StiffnessTriaxial shear testShear stressMaterials scienceGeologyDirect shear testComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stiffness and damping properties of sensitive, very soft clay sediments of the Italian Adriatic continental shelf are determined by means of two series of cyclic simple shear tests (one with 12 stages and one with two stages). The apparatus used in this research is capable of investigating the stress–strain behaviour of the soil in a wide range of shear strains from about 0.0004% to 1%. Test results were expressed in terms of small-strain shear modulus (G0), normalized equivalent shear modulus (Geq/G0), and damping ratio (D) versus cyclic shear-strain amplitude (γc). These parameters were analyzed in the framework of existing literature by comparison with empirical correlations developed for onshore materials of different plasticity and, limited to G0, also for soft soils. The dependence of G0, Geq/G0–γc, and D–γcon factors such as void ratio, stress history, and loading cycles is analyzed and 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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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