MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058050737 · doi:10.1061/9780784412787.022

Characterizing Low Plastic Fine-Grained Foundation Soils under Strong Earthquake Shaking

2013· article· en· W2058050737 on OpenAlexaff
Thuraisamy Thavaraj, Garry Stevenson, James Williams, David Siu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2013 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicModeling, Simulation, and Optimization
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)Klohn Crippen Berger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringPlasticityConsolidation (business)Soil waterShear (geology)Soil testPenetration testGeologyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a field and laboratory testing program conducted on the relatively weak, low plastic, fine-grained soils within a dam foundation. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) with energy measurements and Nilcon vane shear tests were conducted in situ and consolidation, triaxial and constant volume direct simple shear tests (DSS) were conducted on intact soil samples extracted from the low plastic fine grained soil layers. The DSS tests included cyclic and post-cyclic monotonic tests with and without initial static bias. The seismic behaviour of the low plastic fine grained soil layers were characterized based on their plasticity index, over consolidation ratio, SPT resistance, vane shear strengths and cyclic and post-cyclic resistance from the DSS tests, with emphasis on the results from the DSS tests. The paper presents results from the field and laboratory testing focusing on the results from cyclic and post-cyclic DSS tests.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Congress 2013Same topicModeling, Simulation, and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207